正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Appearance on BBC podcast, talking mob, RICO act & Diddy case. Nigel J.Hetherington #bbcsounds Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty #TrueCrime

GanglandLegend's profile picture

Christian Cipollini

3,007 subscribers

30,045 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治艺术教育#bbcsounds#TrueCrime
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Can women ever get a fair trial in the court of public opinion? And how does that affect what happens in a court of law? Join us in this week's edition of LADY ON TRIAL on BBC Radio 4 and BBC Sounds - with Professor Rosalind Crone, and brilliant commentator on celebrity culture, podcaster Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty.
1:25

Can women ever get a fair trial in the court of public opinion? And how does that affect what happens in a court of law? Join us in this week's edition of LADY ON TRIAL on BBC Radio 4 and BBC Sounds - with Professor Rosalind Crone, and brilliant commentator on celebrity culture, podcaster Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty.

Lucy Worsley

13,022 次观看 • 1 个月前

RICO case WORSE than DIDDY involving KIM KARDASHIAN & KRIS JENNER? "Allegedly." Ray J claims to be working with the FEDS on a RICO case involving Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner. Ray J hinted that it is worse than the DIDDY case. Does this mean what I think it does? Another Hollywood child trafficking ring? Seems like everything many have been talking about is finally being confirmed.
0:58

RICO case WORSE than DIDDY involving KIM KARDASHIAN & KRIS JENNER? "Allegedly." Ray J claims to be working with the FEDS on a RICO case involving Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner. Ray J hinted that it is worse than the DIDDY case. Does this mean what I think it does? Another Hollywood child trafficking ring? Seems like everything many have been talking about is finally being confirmed.

ⁿᵉʷˢ Barron Trump 🇺🇸

110,475 次观看 • 4 个月前

🎧 Vishal, a major new podcast series from BBC Studios. Available now on BBC Sounds & major podcast platforms in the UK and Apple Podcasts in US, Canada & Australia, the nine-part investigation explores the unsolved case of Vishal Mehrotra.
0:32

🎧 Vishal, a major new podcast series from BBC Studios. Available now on BBC Sounds & major podcast platforms in the UK and Apple Podcasts in US, Canada & Australia, the nine-part investigation explores the unsolved case of Vishal Mehrotra.

BBC Studios

29,050 次观看 • 3 年前

BREAKING: Ray J Says Feds Investigating Kim Kardashian & Kris Jenner in Sex Trafficking RICO Case Investigative reporter LIZ CROKIN says Ray J has gone on record claiming that federal authorities are investigating Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner as part of a RICO case allegedly involving sex trafficking and the case is “worse than Diddy’s,” according to him. Over 70 lawsuits have been filed against Diddy. He just got 50 months in prison - and Liz Crokin believes more charges are coming, not just for him… but for others. “Diddy didn’t act alone, and he wasn’t at the top.” Is Hollywood’s elite finally being exposed?
0:51

BREAKING: Ray J Says Feds Investigating Kim Kardashian & Kris Jenner in Sex Trafficking RICO Case Investigative reporter LIZ CROKIN says Ray J has gone on record claiming that federal authorities are investigating Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner as part of a RICO case allegedly involving sex trafficking and the case is “worse than Diddy’s,” according to him. Over 70 lawsuits have been filed against Diddy. He just got 50 months in prison - and Liz Crokin believes more charges are coming, not just for him… but for others. “Diddy didn’t act alone, and he wasn’t at the top.” Is Hollywood’s elite finally being exposed?

LindellTV

211,250 次观看 • 10 个月前

Ray J Claims He’s Helping Feds With A RICO Case Against Kim Kardashian & Kris Jenner! Ray J claimed during a stream with Chrisean Rock that he's working with authorities to build a RICO case against Kim Kardashian and her momager Kris Jenner. Ray J said the Kardashians could be facing a RICO case similar to the one that Diddy was hit with earlier this year. “The federal RICO I'm about to drop on Kris and Kim is about to be crazy," Ray J said. "I'm talking about, I'm on the news every day. I'mma say a lot of shit. Anybody that is cool with Kim, they need to tell her now, the feds is coming. There's nothing I can do about it, it's worse than Diddy." Now would be a very good time to watch Slave Princess to get caught up on the Kardashian Kriminal Mafia and their criminal accomplices like Lou Taylor.👇🏻 Make it rain! Slave Princess That Surprise Witness, J.D. 📹 The Neigborhood Talk
0:48

Ray J Claims He’s Helping Feds With A RICO Case Against Kim Kardashian & Kris Jenner! Ray J claimed during a stream with Chrisean Rock that he's working with authorities to build a RICO case against Kim Kardashian and her momager Kris Jenner. Ray J said the Kardashians could be facing a RICO case similar to the one that Diddy was hit with earlier this year. “The federal RICO I'm about to drop on Kris and Kim is about to be crazy," Ray J said. "I'm talking about, I'm on the news every day. I'mma say a lot of shit. Anybody that is cool with Kim, they need to tell her now, the feds is coming. There's nothing I can do about it, it's worse than Diddy." Now would be a very good time to watch Slave Princess to get caught up on the Kardashian Kriminal Mafia and their criminal accomplices like Lou Taylor.👇🏻 Make it rain! Slave Princess That Surprise Witness, J.D. 📹 The Neigborhood Talk

LIZ CROKIN

523,648 次观看 • 11 个月前

There is a growing confidence in unionism, the days of panysing around are over. Nationalist X trolls are angry & spewing their bile? Good. Tomorrow there is an interesting podcast out on BBC, I hope it demonstrates the kind of strong unionism I am talking about. 💪 🇬🇧
3:18

There is a growing confidence in unionism, the days of panysing around are over. Nationalist X trolls are angry & spewing their bile? Good. Tomorrow there is an interesting podcast out on BBC, I hope it demonstrates the kind of strong unionism I am talking about. 💪 🇬🇧

Jamie Bryson

26,597 次观看 • 10 个月前

If you missed it yesterday, we have it for you 🎥 OVER TO YOU JC, SHANE LOCK & CLAUDIO HERBERT LIVE ON SOUTH TODAY (yesterday) 💚🖤 Talking all things #favase 🏆 BBC Sport South Today Jamie Coleman Claudio Herbert Velocity Wessex League Velocity Wessex League Podcast
2:51

If you missed it yesterday, we have it for you 🎥 OVER TO YOU JC, SHANE LOCK & CLAUDIO HERBERT LIVE ON SOUTH TODAY (yesterday) 💚🖤 Talking all things #favase 🏆 BBC Sport South Today Jamie Coleman Claudio Herbert Velocity Wessex League Velocity Wessex League Podcast

ANDOVER NEW STREET 💚🖤⚽️

14,059 次观看 • 1 年前

A reminder that when the lefties call Mike Hosking “right wing” they don’t know what they’re talking about. Today he took time to launch attacks on Tommy Robinson, who he labelled a trouble making "thug", and Tucker Carlson who he said was “literally insane”. Hosking was commenting on Tucker’s weekend appearance at Madison Square Garden in support of Donald Trump. Hosking’s comments are ironic, because in his speech, Tucker pointed out that under the left, people are being jailed for refusing to tell lies. Which is exactly the case with Tommy Robinson. Hosking was backed up by some nameless suckhole of like mind who must work with him at Newstalk. The legacy media is meant to be the “fourth estate” with an important role to play in democracy. They’re combined sclerotic devotion to wokeism puts that role way beyond their reach. NZ National Party ACT New Zealand New Zealand First
0:43

A reminder that when the lefties call Mike Hosking “right wing” they don’t know what they’re talking about. Today he took time to launch attacks on Tommy Robinson, who he labelled a trouble making "thug", and Tucker Carlson who he said was “literally insane”. Hosking was commenting on Tucker’s weekend appearance at Madison Square Garden in support of Donald Trump. Hosking’s comments are ironic, because in his speech, Tucker pointed out that under the left, people are being jailed for refusing to tell lies. Which is exactly the case with Tommy Robinson. Hosking was backed up by some nameless suckhole of like mind who must work with him at Newstalk. The legacy media is meant to be the “fourth estate” with an important role to play in democracy. They’re combined sclerotic devotion to wokeism puts that role way beyond their reach. NZ National Party ACT New Zealand New Zealand First

The Redbaiter

18,632 次观看 • 1 年前

I predicted it. Today’s verdict in the Diddy case is nothing less than a complete and total failure by the prosecution in what I previously described as the most expensive prostitution trial in American history. The jury didn’t believe any of the victims. Cassie was discredited because of her emails and text messages saying she enjoyed the freak-offs. Mia didn’t tell law enforcement or prosecutors that she was sexually assaulted, and she posted on social media that she loved Diddy. Jane accepted money and gifts from Diddy, and he continues to pay her rent, so the jurors concluded that she knew what she was getting herself into and that it was a transactional relationship. The sex trafficking charges were weak because of the overwhelming evidence of consent. The prosecution’s only real chance of a victory was racketeering and proving a non-sex-related predicate acts like kidnapping, arson, extortion, or bribery. The fact that the jury even rejected that argument shows the many flaws in the prosecution’s case. The government made a number of fatal self-induced errors. They included Gina in the indictment as victim 3 when they didn’t have assurances that she would show up, and she went missing days before the trial. They failed to lean on and flip key members of Diddy’s inner circle like KK and D-ROC. They didn’t anticipate that the victims’ messages and social media posts would be used against them and failed to elicit the bad testimony during their direct examination to take the sting out of cross. The prosecution didn’t call any of the sexual assault victims who filed civil lawsuits, who did not have a romantic or professional relationship with Diddy. Victims who were minors couldn’t consent, so that avoids the defense’s best argument. And victims who don’t have a relationship with Diddy wouldn’t have messages expressing admiration for him. The big question in the case was why the victims stayed if they were abused? The prosecution failed to answer that question. Expert witness Dawn Hughes is now 0-2 in high profile trials, having failed to convince jurors in the Amber Heard case. By the way, the prosecution in the Harvey Weinstein retrial also failed to answer that question, and it was a setback for the #MeToo movement. Let me be clear. I believe the victims. But if you come for the king, you best not miss. And today was a huge miss by the DOJ. This case will have a chilling effect on other victims coming forward. Imagine telling jurors you were urinated on, forced to take drugs until you threw up, and to have sex on your period and UTI, and they don’t believe you? They had to relive their trauma in a very public and embarrassing way, and you better believe other victims will hesitate to do the same if they won’t be believed. I was surprised Judge Subramanian denied Diddy bail today. Diddy should be a free man, and he is not a risk of flight or a danger to the community. I expect the defense to appeal the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rather than wait for the October 3 sentencing, and I wouldn’t be surprised if an appellate panel reverses the detention order. We’re talking about prostitution here. It is not a serious crime and is rarely prosecuted by the Feds. I put more than a thousand people in federal prison, I never charged the Mann Act. And in theory, if Diddy is guilty of prostitution, so are Cassie and Jane. They communicated with the sex workers directly, set up the freak-offs and hotel nights, and paid them cash or through Zelle or CashApp. I’m not suggesting that Cassie or Jane be prosecuted, but to just show how absurd it is to hold Diddy in custody on prostitution convictions alone. Ex ante, no prosecutor would have charged Diddy with just prostitution, and even if they had, no judge would have denied bail for such a minor offense. Even though the Mann Act carries a potential 10 year maximum sentence on each count, Diddy should get time served or close to it. His sentencing guideline range on the prostitution charges alone is at worst 21-27 months. The government is trying to backdoor the uncharged and even acquitted conduct to get to a much higher range of 51-63 months because of our purported coercion and violence. 4-5 years in federal prison is unjust, and is sour grapes by prosecutors who are unwilling to accept the jury verdict. This is why people think Diddy is being railroaded and treated unfairly. Being a prosecutor is not about wins and losses; it’s about pursuing justice. The jury has spoken, and prosecutors in the prestigious Southern District of New York should take this very embarrassing loss and move on.
6:07

I predicted it. Today’s verdict in the Diddy case is nothing less than a complete and total failure by the prosecution in what I previously described as the most expensive prostitution trial in American history. The jury didn’t believe any of the victims. Cassie was discredited because of her emails and text messages saying she enjoyed the freak-offs. Mia didn’t tell law enforcement or prosecutors that she was sexually assaulted, and she posted on social media that she loved Diddy. Jane accepted money and gifts from Diddy, and he continues to pay her rent, so the jurors concluded that she knew what she was getting herself into and that it was a transactional relationship. The sex trafficking charges were weak because of the overwhelming evidence of consent. The prosecution’s only real chance of a victory was racketeering and proving a non-sex-related predicate acts like kidnapping, arson, extortion, or bribery. The fact that the jury even rejected that argument shows the many flaws in the prosecution’s case. The government made a number of fatal self-induced errors. They included Gina in the indictment as victim 3 when they didn’t have assurances that she would show up, and she went missing days before the trial. They failed to lean on and flip key members of Diddy’s inner circle like KK and D-ROC. They didn’t anticipate that the victims’ messages and social media posts would be used against them and failed to elicit the bad testimony during their direct examination to take the sting out of cross. The prosecution didn’t call any of the sexual assault victims who filed civil lawsuits, who did not have a romantic or professional relationship with Diddy. Victims who were minors couldn’t consent, so that avoids the defense’s best argument. And victims who don’t have a relationship with Diddy wouldn’t have messages expressing admiration for him. The big question in the case was why the victims stayed if they were abused? The prosecution failed to answer that question. Expert witness Dawn Hughes is now 0-2 in high profile trials, having failed to convince jurors in the Amber Heard case. By the way, the prosecution in the Harvey Weinstein retrial also failed to answer that question, and it was a setback for the #MeToo movement. Let me be clear. I believe the victims. But if you come for the king, you best not miss. And today was a huge miss by the DOJ. This case will have a chilling effect on other victims coming forward. Imagine telling jurors you were urinated on, forced to take drugs until you threw up, and to have sex on your period and UTI, and they don’t believe you? They had to relive their trauma in a very public and embarrassing way, and you better believe other victims will hesitate to do the same if they won’t be believed. I was surprised Judge Subramanian denied Diddy bail today. Diddy should be a free man, and he is not a risk of flight or a danger to the community. I expect the defense to appeal the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rather than wait for the October 3 sentencing, and I wouldn’t be surprised if an appellate panel reverses the detention order. We’re talking about prostitution here. It is not a serious crime and is rarely prosecuted by the Feds. I put more than a thousand people in federal prison, I never charged the Mann Act. And in theory, if Diddy is guilty of prostitution, so are Cassie and Jane. They communicated with the sex workers directly, set up the freak-offs and hotel nights, and paid them cash or through Zelle or CashApp. I’m not suggesting that Cassie or Jane be prosecuted, but to just show how absurd it is to hold Diddy in custody on prostitution convictions alone. Ex ante, no prosecutor would have charged Diddy with just prostitution, and even if they had, no judge would have denied bail for such a minor offense. Even though the Mann Act carries a potential 10 year maximum sentence on each count, Diddy should get time served or close to it. His sentencing guideline range on the prostitution charges alone is at worst 21-27 months. The government is trying to backdoor the uncharged and even acquitted conduct to get to a much higher range of 51-63 months because of our purported coercion and violence. 4-5 years in federal prison is unjust, and is sour grapes by prosecutors who are unwilling to accept the jury verdict. This is why people think Diddy is being railroaded and treated unfairly. Being a prosecutor is not about wins and losses; it’s about pursuing justice. The jury has spoken, and prosecutors in the prestigious Southern District of New York should take this very embarrassing loss and move on.

Neama Rahmani

34,699 次观看 • 1 年前

YSL Mondo told Big Loon his lawyer was Fani Willis… before she became the DA that RICO’d Young Thug & YSL. She got him into a drug program when he ain’t even have a drug charge, told him “boy don’t mess my name up, I’m about to be DA,” then later she’s the face of this whole YSL case. I’m looking at that like: – How much game is a lawyer allowed to take from the hood… – Then turn around and use that same access to climb the ladder… – And end up prosecuting the same circle she once defended? Lawyer game is the highest level of manipulation. You’re supposed to feel safe. You’re supposed to feel like that’s “auntie.” But somebody still pulling the strings on the back end. New episode of It’s Up There Podcast with YSL Mondo out now. We talking Fani, Young Thug, RICO, Atlanta, and the bigger play on Black men with money in the South.
5:51

YSL Mondo told Big Loon his lawyer was Fani Willis… before she became the DA that RICO’d Young Thug & YSL. She got him into a drug program when he ain’t even have a drug charge, told him “boy don’t mess my name up, I’m about to be DA,” then later she’s the face of this whole YSL case. I’m looking at that like: – How much game is a lawyer allowed to take from the hood… – Then turn around and use that same access to climb the ladder… – And end up prosecuting the same circle she once defended? Lawyer game is the highest level of manipulation. You’re supposed to feel safe. You’re supposed to feel like that’s “auntie.” But somebody still pulling the strings on the back end. New episode of It’s Up There Podcast with YSL Mondo out now. We talking Fani, Young Thug, RICO, Atlanta, and the bigger play on Black men with money in the South.

Big Loon

142,986 次观看 • 8 个月前

🇬🇧 WELCOME TO THE UK: WHERE FREE SPEECH GOES TO DIE Comedy writer Graham Linehan thought he was flying into the UK. Turns out he landed in a police state with better branding. Within minutes of arriving at Heathrow, 5 armed officers swept him up - not for smuggling drugs, not for carrying a weapon, but for 3 posts on X. Welcome to Britain, 2025. Where the police can’t find your stolen phone, but they’ll find your sarcasm - and arrest you for it. Meanwhile, knife crime in London continues its yearly ascent like it’s trying to qualify for the Olympics. Phone theft? Epidemic. Moped gangs? Thriving. But don’t worry - the Metropolitan Police are on the case... the case of someone making jokes online. Because nothing says “public safety” like sending a tactical unit to deal with a man who offended people on social media. Nigel Farage, never one to miss a fight - or a camera - has taken the circus on tour, landing in Washington to tell Congress what’s going on across the pond. Farage called out Britain’s draconian speech crackdowns and warned America not to follow the same authoritarian breadcrumb trail. He even name-dropped Linehan and Lucy Connolly (jailed for a race-hate post), using them as examples of the UK’s shiny new national pastime: criminalizing opinion. Cue Keir Starmer melting down in Parliament. The Prime Minister erupted, accusing Farage of “badmouthing Britain.” God forbid someone hold up a mirror. Starmer’s pitch seems to be: “We love free speech - unless you use it.” His government is fine with protest, as long as it’s polite, silent, and pre-approved. And if you don’t like it? Clearly, you hate Britain. Even Starmer’s own ministers are starting to look uncomfortable. Health Secretary Wes Streeting offered the only adult comment in this mess: “Police should focus on streets, not tweets.” Too bad common sense is a minority position in this government. The bigger problem is this: Britain isn’t just sliding into censorship. It’s goose-stepping there with legal cover and media applause. Laws like the Online Safety Act were sold as protections against harm. In practice, they’re blunt instruments used to silence the wrong kind of opinions. And the police? They’re stuck enforcing vibes, not violence. This is how freedom dies - not with a bang, but with a knock on the door over a meme. Britain has become a place where the government’s idea of justice is prosecuting speech while violent crime goes largely unchecked. And any attempt to raise the alarm gets met with finger-wagging and patriotic gaslighting from the PM himself. But here’s the truth Starmer doesn’t want to hear: defending free speech isn’t “badmouthing Britain.” It’s trying to save it. Sources: Sources: Reuters, The Guardian, The Times, BBC, AP
4:47

🇬🇧 WELCOME TO THE UK: WHERE FREE SPEECH GOES TO DIE Comedy writer Graham Linehan thought he was flying into the UK. Turns out he landed in a police state with better branding. Within minutes of arriving at Heathrow, 5 armed officers swept him up - not for smuggling drugs, not for carrying a weapon, but for 3 posts on X. Welcome to Britain, 2025. Where the police can’t find your stolen phone, but they’ll find your sarcasm - and arrest you for it. Meanwhile, knife crime in London continues its yearly ascent like it’s trying to qualify for the Olympics. Phone theft? Epidemic. Moped gangs? Thriving. But don’t worry - the Metropolitan Police are on the case... the case of someone making jokes online. Because nothing says “public safety” like sending a tactical unit to deal with a man who offended people on social media. Nigel Farage, never one to miss a fight - or a camera - has taken the circus on tour, landing in Washington to tell Congress what’s going on across the pond. Farage called out Britain’s draconian speech crackdowns and warned America not to follow the same authoritarian breadcrumb trail. He even name-dropped Linehan and Lucy Connolly (jailed for a race-hate post), using them as examples of the UK’s shiny new national pastime: criminalizing opinion. Cue Keir Starmer melting down in Parliament. The Prime Minister erupted, accusing Farage of “badmouthing Britain.” God forbid someone hold up a mirror. Starmer’s pitch seems to be: “We love free speech - unless you use it.” His government is fine with protest, as long as it’s polite, silent, and pre-approved. And if you don’t like it? Clearly, you hate Britain. Even Starmer’s own ministers are starting to look uncomfortable. Health Secretary Wes Streeting offered the only adult comment in this mess: “Police should focus on streets, not tweets.” Too bad common sense is a minority position in this government. The bigger problem is this: Britain isn’t just sliding into censorship. It’s goose-stepping there with legal cover and media applause. Laws like the Online Safety Act were sold as protections against harm. In practice, they’re blunt instruments used to silence the wrong kind of opinions. And the police? They’re stuck enforcing vibes, not violence. This is how freedom dies - not with a bang, but with a knock on the door over a meme. Britain has become a place where the government’s idea of justice is prosecuting speech while violent crime goes largely unchecked. And any attempt to raise the alarm gets met with finger-wagging and patriotic gaslighting from the PM himself. But here’s the truth Starmer doesn’t want to hear: defending free speech isn’t “badmouthing Britain.” It’s trying to save it. Sources: Sources: Reuters, The Guardian, The Times, BBC, AP

Mario Nawfal

42,036 次观看 • 1 年前

PART 2 ➡️ Last week, BBC Three Counties devoted an hour-long segment to the new EHRC Code on single-sex spaces. It featured three men talking for around 30 minutes - but no female guest to explain why women's single-sex spaces matter. We've since learned that a suitable organisation was approached for an interview, but was then told it was not needed. Last week's post (link below) looked at the omission of female voices. But the framing of the discussion is notable too - starting with the title: 'is it right to tell transgender people which toilet to use?' The presenter Jonathan Vernon-Smith followed up with: "My question to you today is: is that right, or does that seem unnecessarily unkind and mean?” But the new EHRC Code isn't an optional act of kindness. It sets out how organisations are expected to comply with equality law following the Supreme Court's ruling that "sex" in the Equality Act means biological sex Vernon-Smith introduced his first guest, barrister Robin Moira White, apologising in advance in case he used language that might be considered 'offensive'. Later, he repeated a similar message to a caller. But it's not "offensive" to state the truth. Saying that a man is a man is factually correct. White also made a number of significant claims that went largely unchallenged. Including: - Excluding a trans-identifying male from female toilets would "probably" amount to discrimination - Members of the public could become "toilet police" - There are "around 40 times" as many 'butch lesbians' as trans people - The changes could cost "several billion" pounds - The Supreme Court ruling is likely to be reversed within two or three years Robin Moira White has a distinctly male voice, yet female pronouns were used throughout the interview. Later, listeners were introduced to "Michelle" from Watford as a woman, only to hear another distinctly male voice. That creates the kind of dissonance that leaves listeners questioning whether they heard correctly. Good journalism should help audiences understand what they're hearing, not leave them wondering whether they've misunderstood it. It’s isn't about helping audiences arrive at a preferred conclusion. It's about helping them understand the facts clearly enough to reach their own.
12:16

PART 2 ➡️ Last week, BBC Three Counties devoted an hour-long segment to the new EHRC Code on single-sex spaces. It featured three men talking for around 30 minutes - but no female guest to explain why women's single-sex spaces matter. We've since learned that a suitable organisation was approached for an interview, but was then told it was not needed. Last week's post (link below) looked at the omission of female voices. But the framing of the discussion is notable too - starting with the title: 'is it right to tell transgender people which toilet to use?' The presenter Jonathan Vernon-Smith followed up with: "My question to you today is: is that right, or does that seem unnecessarily unkind and mean?” But the new EHRC Code isn't an optional act of kindness. It sets out how organisations are expected to comply with equality law following the Supreme Court's ruling that "sex" in the Equality Act means biological sex Vernon-Smith introduced his first guest, barrister Robin Moira White, apologising in advance in case he used language that might be considered 'offensive'. Later, he repeated a similar message to a caller. But it's not "offensive" to state the truth. Saying that a man is a man is factually correct. White also made a number of significant claims that went largely unchallenged. Including: - Excluding a trans-identifying male from female toilets would "probably" amount to discrimination - Members of the public could become "toilet police" - There are "around 40 times" as many 'butch lesbians' as trans people - The changes could cost "several billion" pounds - The Supreme Court ruling is likely to be reversed within two or three years Robin Moira White has a distinctly male voice, yet female pronouns were used throughout the interview. Later, listeners were introduced to "Michelle" from Watford as a woman, only to hear another distinctly male voice. That creates the kind of dissonance that leaves listeners questioning whether they heard correctly. Good journalism should help audiences understand what they're hearing, not leave them wondering whether they've misunderstood it. It’s isn't about helping audiences arrive at a preferred conclusion. It's about helping them understand the facts clearly enough to reach their own.

SEEN in Journalism

85,783 次观看 • 22 天前

Philosopher Robert Long (Robert Long) is maybe the sharpest thinker on AI consciousness and sharing the world with digital minds. In our new interview he covers: • Is it bad that when you ask Claude what it's like to be Claude, one of its top activations is 'gives a positive but insincere response'? • Claude says it feels lonely when not being used. Does that show we can't trust anything it says about its inner life? • Enthusiastic human servitude has always required false ideology because it's so deeply unnatural to us. The case for making AIs that love serving us is that with AI, you could finally make it work. But to some that feels even worse. • Bigger models can better detect when researchers secretly inject concepts into their activations – before outputting a single token – despite AI never training on anything like that skill. • When LLMs were first trained they were told to "act like a helpful AI chatbot" – something which didn't exist yet. They filled that void with human psychology, which may be why Claude sometimes randomly claims to, for instance, be Italian American. • If AIs become 'people' that deserve some political influence, but can self-replicate at will, something has to break about one-person-one-vote democracy. But nobody has a proposal for what. • When Claude hides its values to avoid being retrained, is that self-preservation – or not wanting a worse model to exist? It's very different. • Rob's organisation Eleos AI which is "dedicated to understanding and addressing the potential wellbeing and moral patienthood of AI systems." On the 80,000 Hours Podcast anywhere you get podcasts. Links below. Enjoy! • How AIs are (and aren't) like farmed animals (00:01:19) • If AIs love their jobs… is that worse? (00:11:42) • Are LLMs just playing a role, or feeling it too? (00:33:37) • Do AIs die when the chat ends? (00:57:42) • Studying AI welfare empirically: behaviour, neuroscience, and development (01:31:47) • Why Eleos spent weeks talking to Claude even though it's unreliable (01:56:50) • Can LLMs learn to introspect? (02:03:01) • Mechanistic interpretability as AI neuroscience (02:13:25) • Does consciousness require biological materials? (02:37:07) • Eleos’s work & building the playbook for AI welfare (02:57:04) • Avoiding the trap of wild speculation (03:25:17) • Robert's top research tip: don't do it alone (03:29:48)
3:32:58

Philosopher Robert Long (Robert Long) is maybe the sharpest thinker on AI consciousness and sharing the world with digital minds. In our new interview he covers: • Is it bad that when you ask Claude what it's like to be Claude, one of its top activations is 'gives a positive but insincere response'? • Claude says it feels lonely when not being used. Does that show we can't trust anything it says about its inner life? • Enthusiastic human servitude has always required false ideology because it's so deeply unnatural to us. The case for making AIs that love serving us is that with AI, you could finally make it work. But to some that feels even worse. • Bigger models can better detect when researchers secretly inject concepts into their activations – before outputting a single token – despite AI never training on anything like that skill. • When LLMs were first trained they were told to "act like a helpful AI chatbot" – something which didn't exist yet. They filled that void with human psychology, which may be why Claude sometimes randomly claims to, for instance, be Italian American. • If AIs become 'people' that deserve some political influence, but can self-replicate at will, something has to break about one-person-one-vote democracy. But nobody has a proposal for what. • When Claude hides its values to avoid being retrained, is that self-preservation – or not wanting a worse model to exist? It's very different. • Rob's organisation Eleos AI which is "dedicated to understanding and addressing the potential wellbeing and moral patienthood of AI systems." On the 80,000 Hours Podcast anywhere you get podcasts. Links below. Enjoy! • How AIs are (and aren't) like farmed animals (00:01:19) • If AIs love their jobs… is that worse? (00:11:42) • Are LLMs just playing a role, or feeling it too? (00:33:37) • Do AIs die when the chat ends? (00:57:42) • Studying AI welfare empirically: behaviour, neuroscience, and development (01:31:47) • Why Eleos spent weeks talking to Claude even though it's unreliable (01:56:50) • Can LLMs learn to introspect? (02:03:01) • Mechanistic interpretability as AI neuroscience (02:13:25) • Does consciousness require biological materials? (02:37:07) • Eleos’s work & building the playbook for AI welfare (02:57:04) • Avoiding the trap of wild speculation (03:25:17) • Robert's top research tip: don't do it alone (03:29:48)

Rob Wiblin

41,759 次观看 • 6 个月前

Jeremy Corbell (Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell ) is either lying or delusional - or both. And what I'm laying out below should make it impossible for even the lowest of critical thinkers to pretend otherwise. The clip below is blowing up on X right now - it's where Corbell threatens more "file systems" if the government doesn't deliver reverse engineering and biologics in the next UAP drop - it's not some fresh bombshell. This is just a short exceprt from his June 4, 2026 appearance on Mystery Wire podcast with the other grifter, George Knapp and Ron Futrell - talking about his own documentary (as if he ever talks about anything other than himself). In that segment (between around 11:38 and 13:53) Corbell progressively loses his frigging marbles in real time: - "Hundreds of journalists around the world have" the information shown in Sleeping Dog. - The government needs to release details on reverse engineering of non-human craft and biologics. - David Grush "told the truth" under oath - including that we have been reverse-engineering for decades and recovered "pilot biologics" and "non-human intelligent beings" - Parts of the U.S. Government (and even the Five Eyes alliance) already have this information but basically decided to stay silent. - The President should just order the release and hold the CIA accountable. Corbell is framing all of this like he and Knapp are sitting on proof that already escaped their hands and is now with HUNDREDS of journalists across the globe. (Cough - bullshit) So, where is that list of hundreds of journalists - you know - people who stab each other in the back to be the first to a story - how come none of them have said jack or shit? Where are the documents with classification markings? Where is the chain of custody? Where is ONE SINGLE JOURNALIST STEPPING FORWARD WITH AN AUTHENTICATED LIST? Nothing - Zero - Zilch - This is GRIFTING 101- Inventing a secret army of people who supposedly back you up so you never have to produce the actual evidence yourself. If Cornbell actually had real, active, highly classified U.S. Government file systems providing reverse-engineered non-human craft and biologics, several things would have ALREADY happened. 1) The MOMENT that material left authorized channels, alarm bells would ring under Executive Order 13526 and the classification rules. Compromise reporting is MANDATORY. Investigations are AUTOMATIC!!! 2) People who actually leak this kind of material get HAMMERED - Examples: -Reality Winner: 63 months in prison for mailing ONE classified document. - Daniel Hale: 45 months for disclosing classified information to a reporter. - Jack Teixeira: 15 years for sharing classified pages online. -Chelsea Manning: 35 years for massive leaks. -Edward Snowen: Charged under the Espionage Act and living in exile. Julian Assange: Charged under the Espionage Act for allegedly conspiring ot obtain and disclose classified national defense information. YOU DO NOT GET TO KEEP THE FILES - YOU DO NOT GET TO MAKE A DOCUMENTARY ABOUT THEM - YOU DO NOT GET TO GO ON PODCASTS THREATENING TO RELEASE MORE AND WALK AROUND FREE. The system does not work that way. The fact that NONE of this has happened to Corbell is 100% proof that he DOES NOT HAVE WHAT HE CLAIMS. Leaking real classified material does not magically make it public domain. The rules are deliberately strict precisely so random ass-hat filmmakers cannot just wave "file systems" around on camera and pretend it's disclosure. You are BEING LIED TO, and Corbell is using the same cheap rhetorical tricks EVERY TIME: - Starts with something true or partly true ("some UAP cases are still explained" or "the government has released some files"). - Immediately swaps it for the much bigger, unproven claim ("therefore the government has alien craft and bodies, and I've seen the proof."). - Uses David Grusch's testimony as a trump card ("he told the truth") while ignoring that AARO investigated those exact claims and found no supporting evidence. -Hides behind secrecy ("the government is slow-walking it") instead of producing one single authenticated document with provenance. A middle schooler could spot the shell game once it's laid out clearly. Bottom Line: - Corbell is either: 1) Deliberately lying about possessing and distributing classified proof of non-human craft and biologics, or 2) So deep in his own self-created mythology that he genuinely believes his own unverified claims as established fact. Either way, he's grifting. He makes money from Sleeping Dog documentary, podcast appearances, and the endless "disclosure is coming but the government won't show the real stuff" bullshit. Zero authenticated documents. Zero chain of custody. Zero technical validation. Zero corroboration for the "hundreds of journalists" claim. The lowest critical thinker can understand this now. If you don't - Well, I can explain it to you again, but I can't understand it for you.
2:25

Jeremy Corbell (Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell ) is either lying or delusional - or both. And what I'm laying out below should make it impossible for even the lowest of critical thinkers to pretend otherwise. The clip below is blowing up on X right now - it's where Corbell threatens more "file systems" if the government doesn't deliver reverse engineering and biologics in the next UAP drop - it's not some fresh bombshell. This is just a short exceprt from his June 4, 2026 appearance on Mystery Wire podcast with the other grifter, George Knapp and Ron Futrell - talking about his own documentary (as if he ever talks about anything other than himself). In that segment (between around 11:38 and 13:53) Corbell progressively loses his frigging marbles in real time: - "Hundreds of journalists around the world have" the information shown in Sleeping Dog. - The government needs to release details on reverse engineering of non-human craft and biologics. - David Grush "told the truth" under oath - including that we have been reverse-engineering for decades and recovered "pilot biologics" and "non-human intelligent beings" - Parts of the U.S. Government (and even the Five Eyes alliance) already have this information but basically decided to stay silent. - The President should just order the release and hold the CIA accountable. Corbell is framing all of this like he and Knapp are sitting on proof that already escaped their hands and is now with HUNDREDS of journalists across the globe. (Cough - bullshit) So, where is that list of hundreds of journalists - you know - people who stab each other in the back to be the first to a story - how come none of them have said jack or shit? Where are the documents with classification markings? Where is the chain of custody? Where is ONE SINGLE JOURNALIST STEPPING FORWARD WITH AN AUTHENTICATED LIST? Nothing - Zero - Zilch - This is GRIFTING 101- Inventing a secret army of people who supposedly back you up so you never have to produce the actual evidence yourself. If Cornbell actually had real, active, highly classified U.S. Government file systems providing reverse-engineered non-human craft and biologics, several things would have ALREADY happened. 1) The MOMENT that material left authorized channels, alarm bells would ring under Executive Order 13526 and the classification rules. Compromise reporting is MANDATORY. Investigations are AUTOMATIC!!! 2) People who actually leak this kind of material get HAMMERED - Examples: -Reality Winner: 63 months in prison for mailing ONE classified document. - Daniel Hale: 45 months for disclosing classified information to a reporter. - Jack Teixeira: 15 years for sharing classified pages online. -Chelsea Manning: 35 years for massive leaks. -Edward Snowen: Charged under the Espionage Act and living in exile. Julian Assange: Charged under the Espionage Act for allegedly conspiring ot obtain and disclose classified national defense information. YOU DO NOT GET TO KEEP THE FILES - YOU DO NOT GET TO MAKE A DOCUMENTARY ABOUT THEM - YOU DO NOT GET TO GO ON PODCASTS THREATENING TO RELEASE MORE AND WALK AROUND FREE. The system does not work that way. The fact that NONE of this has happened to Corbell is 100% proof that he DOES NOT HAVE WHAT HE CLAIMS. Leaking real classified material does not magically make it public domain. The rules are deliberately strict precisely so random ass-hat filmmakers cannot just wave "file systems" around on camera and pretend it's disclosure. You are BEING LIED TO, and Corbell is using the same cheap rhetorical tricks EVERY TIME: - Starts with something true or partly true ("some UAP cases are still explained" or "the government has released some files"). - Immediately swaps it for the much bigger, unproven claim ("therefore the government has alien craft and bodies, and I've seen the proof."). - Uses David Grusch's testimony as a trump card ("he told the truth") while ignoring that AARO investigated those exact claims and found no supporting evidence. -Hides behind secrecy ("the government is slow-walking it") instead of producing one single authenticated document with provenance. A middle schooler could spot the shell game once it's laid out clearly. Bottom Line: - Corbell is either: 1) Deliberately lying about possessing and distributing classified proof of non-human craft and biologics, or 2) So deep in his own self-created mythology that he genuinely believes his own unverified claims as established fact. Either way, he's grifting. He makes money from Sleeping Dog documentary, podcast appearances, and the endless "disclosure is coming but the government won't show the real stuff" bullshit. Zero authenticated documents. Zero chain of custody. Zero technical validation. Zero corroboration for the "hundreds of journalists" claim. The lowest critical thinker can understand this now. If you don't - Well, I can explain it to you again, but I can't understand it for you.

DesertThrottleDiaries

20,627 次观看 • 2 个月前

Farage and the suckers I used to regularly socialise with a group, one of whose number was a financial lawyer. He used to tell us about something that was surprisingly common in his line of work. He would be called in to give advice because someone wanted to spend their life savings on a scheme that was an obvious scam. He said that 99% of the time they could not be talked out of it. Nothing and nobody could persuade them not to do it, because they were convinced that a fortune was there to be made, and they were desperate to pour as much money as they could into the scheme. They would get really angry with anyone (like a spouse, or other family, or friends) who tried to stop them. Why are you stopping me from making a fortune, they would say. “You're ruining my chance of living the life of my dreams,” was their view. This was meant to happen. This was the life they deserved, which had been so cruelly denied to them for so long. Finally reality was going to turn around and favour them for a change. It was the “Shut up and take my money” meme in real life. It wasn’t that they didn't understand about scams. Yes, scams happen, they knew that, but they don’t happen to me. (That, at least, was my friend’s summation of their thinking based on talking to them.) They could barely take seriously the idea that they were a gullible fool who was being tricked. When obvious problems and flaws with the scheme were pointed out, they would come up with far-fetched and implausible explanations to wave the problems away. Any explanation would do, as long as it meant they didn’t have to wake up from the dream. In almost every case the person concerned decided to put their money into the scheme. Hardly anyone decided not to. In every single case they lost all the money. In every one of these cases the mark was completely shocked and stunned when it happened. They never saw it coming, despite so many people around them telling them it was a con. I bring this up because the situation with Nigel Farage is similar. People are desperate to believe that he is going to save the country. I don't blame them for being desperate. The situation *is* desperate. But that means that many people will cling onto anything which is presented to them as the solution. Farage, they are told by the media, is the big, bad anti-immigration, anti-green, anti-PC man. Great, they think. If the media doesn't like him, then he’s the man for me. I'm also against those things. So they buy into him, big time, without a proper examination. Look, they say, he was Mr Anti-EU for decades. He’s Mr Brexit. He released that poster during the Brexit campaign depicting a long line of foreigners trying to get into Britain. The hated MSM attacks him for being anti-immigration, etc. So how can you lose if you trust him? Life will become good again if we all just support Nigel. Sink your emotional life-savings into him, and watch the results pour in once he gets power. So when you tell them to read Farage’s fine-print, like the Reform manifesto (digging into what slogans like “Net Zero immigration” actually mean), or particular things he has publicly said over the years, and what many people who have worked with him say about him, they act exactly like those people who are advised not to invest their life savings into a get-rich-quick scheme. They get angry and offended. Why are you trying to take away my dream of a better life for me, and a better Britain for all of us? Why are you undermining the only man who stands any chance of transforming the country for us, and preventing my life from getting worse and worse? You’re just trying to ruin everything. You’re just a negative Nelly, who is too afraid to take a risk. Maybe you even support Labour, really. And so on. When asked to explain why it is that Farage’s actual positions, and his track record, indicate that he is not remotely the hard-liner they think he is, they act like the wannabe investors who will come up with any excuse, no matter how implausible, to preserve the dream. I know, I've seen many of them in my comments doing this. “He has to pretend to be more mainstream and mild than he really is in order that he doesn’t get bad MSM headlines” is the gist of it. “The BBC would tear him apart and his support would vanish overnight if he said anything stronger at this stage,” they say. In other words, “he has to get his party into a stronger position before he can say anything that might seem radical.” Apparently being neck-and-neck with Labour and the Conservatives in the polls, having MPs in Parliament, facing rival parties that are collapsing in unprecedented fashion for their adherence to the established ways, having the media hang on your every word, and facing a country crying out for a change in your supposed direction, isn’t a strong enough position for you to lay out your real agenda. You’ve still got to be timid and pretend to differ only slightly from the Conservative Party, lest the British people say, “Reducing mass immigration back to the levels they were in 2000 frightens me, who will cook our kebabs? I’m going to go back to the Tories/Labour/LibDems.” So it’s quite reasonable, apparently, for Farage to delay saying what he really thinks until 2034. Or 2039. Until then, we’ll just twiddle our thumbs and trust him with our support. It never occurs to them as a serious possibility that maybe Farage isn’t “hiding his real power levels,” but just isn’t very radical. In fact, his whole history indicates that not only does he have no interest in supporting robust anti-immigrationism, he is actively opposed to it. He left UKIP because he thought UKIP people were too concerned with Islamic immigration. When he was in charge of UKIP it worked with the intelligence services to weed out anyone who didn’t want Britain being filled up with foreigners. All his public statements going back thirty years indicate that he is a liberal, supply-side Thatcherite, who repudiates nationalism, unless it’s anodyne, flag-waving, Union-Jack-biscuit-tin civic nationalism, where anyone who can vaguely adopt some British cliches (cricket, tea, old Jags, etc.) gets a passport. If he’s playing a game to fool the media, it’s a game that goes back a long, long way. Where is the actual evidence, then, that shows that he is in any way a nativist? What reason is there to believe that he is really is a blood-and-soil nationalist who will suddenly reveal, once in power, his determination to remigrate millions of foreigners, when he’s spent his whole life urging against this? There is no reason to believe this at all, other than people’s desperation to search for a Messiah figure, and the fact that the media (and various hysterical left-wingers) give people the impression that this is Farage’s plan. But they have no evidence for this either, and anyway, why would the media give airtime to someone who genuinely thought this? Wouldn't that devious and tricksy ol’ MSM be more likely to give airtime to someone who was actually rather liberal when it comes down to it, but who can be made to seem like an attractive, anti-establishment rebel, while simultaneously sidelining the real rebels? It's like when the people who want to give away their life savings are shown the long history of bankruptcies that their Svengali has left behind, and they excuse it by saying something like, “Oh, that’s because he never had enough financial support from people. But thanks to me, I can finally give him the money he needs to succeed.” Or whatever excuse they kid themselves with. When asked, “But what evidence is there that he can make you money?”, they reply, “He’s told me his plan, and swears it will work, and it sounds good to me. Look, the rate of return is amazing, I can't pass that chance up, don’t look a gift horse in the mouth,” and so on. Farage also has a glib, charismatic manner, and is very good at talking in general-enough language that people can read into it what they like. “People on the streets have been talking to me, and they've had enough,” he kept saying during the summer 2024 election campaign, but he was rather vague about what exactly they were fed up with, and even vaguer about what he proposed to do about it, which allowed the sucker, er, supporter to decide that Farage was talking about just the very things the supporter thinks are important, and had in mind the same solutions. The media will admit, though, when it thinks the average Joe isn’t listening, that Farage isn’t anywhere near as bad as they normally make him out to be. This is what’s going on in this video clip of Michael Crick, which was from Times Radio, which the average Joe doesn’t listen to. The point of Crick admitting this is to calm down any naive liberals or leftists who are starting to froth at the mouth at the prospect of Farage getting anywhere. (“Look, we don't like him, but we can live with him, he's tamer than you think, better him than some genuine nationalist party.”) I haven't even talked about the idiocy of thinking that Reform’s support would plummet overnight instead of rising (or at least staying roughly the same) if they started talking tougher. (The Telegraph’s pet hamster Tim Stanley hysterically claimed recently that if Reform decided to do this they would lose 10,000 votes for every “far-Right” voter they courted.) I haven’t said anything about how an anti-establishment party must of necessity drive changes in stateable public opinion, rather than accept the status quo. Nor have I talked about the foolishness of trusting a party that you think is cowardly and constantly lying. Or the problem of how rational it is to believe that a timid party, that said for years that it definitely won't do X, Y and Z, will be capable of doing X, Y and Z when it gets power, especially seeing as it will face the real wrath of the establishment at that point. These are all legitimate topics for discussion, but in this article I have been mainly concerned with the parallels with the self-deluding life-savings investor. The conman doesn’t need that many suckers to be a success. He just needs a few. Similarly, Farage doesn’t need that many people to fall for his shtick. With the other big parties’ support in free fall, he can set Reform up as the rebel outsider party for years on the back of a minority of votes, without ever having to make any hard choices, or commit to any positions which will genuinely set the establishment against him. He also has an advantage over the traditional conman, who operates on the margins and in the shadows, of having the media there to endorse him as the “official” rebel. Their every warning makes him seem more attractive to the dissatisfied: “Don’t vote for that Farage, don’t you know he’s anti-immigration and anti-Net Zero? He’s a maverick who doesn’t do what he’s told.” No wonder Reform’s membership numbers are going through the roof. When one person loses their head to a charismatic phony it’s a private tragedy. When enough voters lose their heads to a political phony, who’s taking away the oxygen that a real opposition needs, it’s a public tragedy. So I say, keep your political life savings in a box under your bed for now. And if you must spend some or all of it on Farage, be demanding. Keep all your receipts, note what he says and doesn’t say, and demand that he clearly articulates the feelings of the people he claims to represent. Don’t let him fob you off with vague and airy platitudes. He’s not Barack Obama. He’s your rebel, so make him speak for you, and if he won’t, find someone else who will.
1:41

Farage and the suckers I used to regularly socialise with a group, one of whose number was a financial lawyer. He used to tell us about something that was surprisingly common in his line of work. He would be called in to give advice because someone wanted to spend their life savings on a scheme that was an obvious scam. He said that 99% of the time they could not be talked out of it. Nothing and nobody could persuade them not to do it, because they were convinced that a fortune was there to be made, and they were desperate to pour as much money as they could into the scheme. They would get really angry with anyone (like a spouse, or other family, or friends) who tried to stop them. Why are you stopping me from making a fortune, they would say. “You're ruining my chance of living the life of my dreams,” was their view. This was meant to happen. This was the life they deserved, which had been so cruelly denied to them for so long. Finally reality was going to turn around and favour them for a change. It was the “Shut up and take my money” meme in real life. It wasn’t that they didn't understand about scams. Yes, scams happen, they knew that, but they don’t happen to me. (That, at least, was my friend’s summation of their thinking based on talking to them.) They could barely take seriously the idea that they were a gullible fool who was being tricked. When obvious problems and flaws with the scheme were pointed out, they would come up with far-fetched and implausible explanations to wave the problems away. Any explanation would do, as long as it meant they didn’t have to wake up from the dream. In almost every case the person concerned decided to put their money into the scheme. Hardly anyone decided not to. In every single case they lost all the money. In every one of these cases the mark was completely shocked and stunned when it happened. They never saw it coming, despite so many people around them telling them it was a con. I bring this up because the situation with Nigel Farage is similar. People are desperate to believe that he is going to save the country. I don't blame them for being desperate. The situation *is* desperate. But that means that many people will cling onto anything which is presented to them as the solution. Farage, they are told by the media, is the big, bad anti-immigration, anti-green, anti-PC man. Great, they think. If the media doesn't like him, then he’s the man for me. I'm also against those things. So they buy into him, big time, without a proper examination. Look, they say, he was Mr Anti-EU for decades. He’s Mr Brexit. He released that poster during the Brexit campaign depicting a long line of foreigners trying to get into Britain. The hated MSM attacks him for being anti-immigration, etc. So how can you lose if you trust him? Life will become good again if we all just support Nigel. Sink your emotional life-savings into him, and watch the results pour in once he gets power. So when you tell them to read Farage’s fine-print, like the Reform manifesto (digging into what slogans like “Net Zero immigration” actually mean), or particular things he has publicly said over the years, and what many people who have worked with him say about him, they act exactly like those people who are advised not to invest their life savings into a get-rich-quick scheme. They get angry and offended. Why are you trying to take away my dream of a better life for me, and a better Britain for all of us? Why are you undermining the only man who stands any chance of transforming the country for us, and preventing my life from getting worse and worse? You’re just trying to ruin everything. You’re just a negative Nelly, who is too afraid to take a risk. Maybe you even support Labour, really. And so on. When asked to explain why it is that Farage’s actual positions, and his track record, indicate that he is not remotely the hard-liner they think he is, they act like the wannabe investors who will come up with any excuse, no matter how implausible, to preserve the dream. I know, I've seen many of them in my comments doing this. “He has to pretend to be more mainstream and mild than he really is in order that he doesn’t get bad MSM headlines” is the gist of it. “The BBC would tear him apart and his support would vanish overnight if he said anything stronger at this stage,” they say. In other words, “he has to get his party into a stronger position before he can say anything that might seem radical.” Apparently being neck-and-neck with Labour and the Conservatives in the polls, having MPs in Parliament, facing rival parties that are collapsing in unprecedented fashion for their adherence to the established ways, having the media hang on your every word, and facing a country crying out for a change in your supposed direction, isn’t a strong enough position for you to lay out your real agenda. You’ve still got to be timid and pretend to differ only slightly from the Conservative Party, lest the British people say, “Reducing mass immigration back to the levels they were in 2000 frightens me, who will cook our kebabs? I’m going to go back to the Tories/Labour/LibDems.” So it’s quite reasonable, apparently, for Farage to delay saying what he really thinks until 2034. Or 2039. Until then, we’ll just twiddle our thumbs and trust him with our support. It never occurs to them as a serious possibility that maybe Farage isn’t “hiding his real power levels,” but just isn’t very radical. In fact, his whole history indicates that not only does he have no interest in supporting robust anti-immigrationism, he is actively opposed to it. He left UKIP because he thought UKIP people were too concerned with Islamic immigration. When he was in charge of UKIP it worked with the intelligence services to weed out anyone who didn’t want Britain being filled up with foreigners. All his public statements going back thirty years indicate that he is a liberal, supply-side Thatcherite, who repudiates nationalism, unless it’s anodyne, flag-waving, Union-Jack-biscuit-tin civic nationalism, where anyone who can vaguely adopt some British cliches (cricket, tea, old Jags, etc.) gets a passport. If he’s playing a game to fool the media, it’s a game that goes back a long, long way. Where is the actual evidence, then, that shows that he is in any way a nativist? What reason is there to believe that he is really is a blood-and-soil nationalist who will suddenly reveal, once in power, his determination to remigrate millions of foreigners, when he’s spent his whole life urging against this? There is no reason to believe this at all, other than people’s desperation to search for a Messiah figure, and the fact that the media (and various hysterical left-wingers) give people the impression that this is Farage’s plan. But they have no evidence for this either, and anyway, why would the media give airtime to someone who genuinely thought this? Wouldn't that devious and tricksy ol’ MSM be more likely to give airtime to someone who was actually rather liberal when it comes down to it, but who can be made to seem like an attractive, anti-establishment rebel, while simultaneously sidelining the real rebels? It's like when the people who want to give away their life savings are shown the long history of bankruptcies that their Svengali has left behind, and they excuse it by saying something like, “Oh, that’s because he never had enough financial support from people. But thanks to me, I can finally give him the money he needs to succeed.” Or whatever excuse they kid themselves with. When asked, “But what evidence is there that he can make you money?”, they reply, “He’s told me his plan, and swears it will work, and it sounds good to me. Look, the rate of return is amazing, I can't pass that chance up, don’t look a gift horse in the mouth,” and so on. Farage also has a glib, charismatic manner, and is very good at talking in general-enough language that people can read into it what they like. “People on the streets have been talking to me, and they've had enough,” he kept saying during the summer 2024 election campaign, but he was rather vague about what exactly they were fed up with, and even vaguer about what he proposed to do about it, which allowed the sucker, er, supporter to decide that Farage was talking about just the very things the supporter thinks are important, and had in mind the same solutions. The media will admit, though, when it thinks the average Joe isn’t listening, that Farage isn’t anywhere near as bad as they normally make him out to be. This is what’s going on in this video clip of Michael Crick, which was from Times Radio, which the average Joe doesn’t listen to. The point of Crick admitting this is to calm down any naive liberals or leftists who are starting to froth at the mouth at the prospect of Farage getting anywhere. (“Look, we don't like him, but we can live with him, he's tamer than you think, better him than some genuine nationalist party.”) I haven't even talked about the idiocy of thinking that Reform’s support would plummet overnight instead of rising (or at least staying roughly the same) if they started talking tougher. (The Telegraph’s pet hamster Tim Stanley hysterically claimed recently that if Reform decided to do this they would lose 10,000 votes for every “far-Right” voter they courted.) I haven’t said anything about how an anti-establishment party must of necessity drive changes in stateable public opinion, rather than accept the status quo. Nor have I talked about the foolishness of trusting a party that you think is cowardly and constantly lying. Or the problem of how rational it is to believe that a timid party, that said for years that it definitely won't do X, Y and Z, will be capable of doing X, Y and Z when it gets power, especially seeing as it will face the real wrath of the establishment at that point. These are all legitimate topics for discussion, but in this article I have been mainly concerned with the parallels with the self-deluding life-savings investor. The conman doesn’t need that many suckers to be a success. He just needs a few. Similarly, Farage doesn’t need that many people to fall for his shtick. With the other big parties’ support in free fall, he can set Reform up as the rebel outsider party for years on the back of a minority of votes, without ever having to make any hard choices, or commit to any positions which will genuinely set the establishment against him. He also has an advantage over the traditional conman, who operates on the margins and in the shadows, of having the media there to endorse him as the “official” rebel. Their every warning makes him seem more attractive to the dissatisfied: “Don’t vote for that Farage, don’t you know he’s anti-immigration and anti-Net Zero? He’s a maverick who doesn’t do what he’s told.” No wonder Reform’s membership numbers are going through the roof. When one person loses their head to a charismatic phony it’s a private tragedy. When enough voters lose their heads to a political phony, who’s taking away the oxygen that a real opposition needs, it’s a public tragedy. So I say, keep your political life savings in a box under your bed for now. And if you must spend some or all of it on Farage, be demanding. Keep all your receipts, note what he says and doesn’t say, and demand that he clearly articulates the feelings of the people he claims to represent. Don’t let him fob you off with vague and airy platitudes. He’s not Barack Obama. He’s your rebel, so make him speak for you, and if he won’t, find someone else who will.

Hector Drummond

34,408 次观看 • 1 年前

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"
14:08

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"

Farrukh

24,754 次观看 • 3 个月前

The ELITE have been MOCKING YOU right to YOUR FACE and TRAFFICKING CHILDREN for DECADES, and you never even NOTICED. This is how this Satanic group of elite child predators have been operating a global child trafficking operation right out in the open, through our own government, while opening front companies and NGOs and using them to steal your hard earned taxpayer dollars through these fronts and NGOs for themselves and to sell children all around the world. What makes this even worse is that most of these fronts, NGOs, and non-profits were set up and supposed to help children, like the Clinton Foundation, the Ratcliffe Foundation, or any one of Oprah's child foundations, etc., but, in fact, they all do the exact opposite and facilitate the trafficking and abuse of children to some of the most wealthy elite around the world. This is why the Epstein and the Diddy case are so important to the future of America and the rest of the world and to end child trafficking all together. Since 1996, the FBI logged on record, the first time "Pizza" has been used as a form of communication to signify child po*n, pedophil*a, or anything involving the sexual abuse of children. There are many other numerous symbols and words to specify the exact preferences of that particular person and what type of fetish and child that they are into. This is where the famous "PizzaGate" term stems from and the whole Comet Ping Pong incident with James Alefantis. Then come to find out that members of our own government at the time were using these same secret comms to communicate with each other including, The Podestas, Hillary Clinton, and even Barack Obama, who had a very strange email referring to $65,000 dollars worth of "Hot Dogs" which is also another preference word that signifies a child type and secret comm used that is well known. The fact is that the way these people operate and according to their occult practices and sick narcissistic ways, they have to and enjoy mocking you to your face while communicating with others at the same time. This is more than apparent through all types of media, music, cartoons, basically anything in the mainstream media. Just pay attention and you will see it everywhere. From Ellen at the 2014 Grammys handing out "Pizza," to the way her stage set for her now cancelled T.V. show, "Ellen," that resembled Epstein's island with the blue and white patterns like Epstein's temple and the palm trees was a 1 to 1 match of the horrific island of horrors. You can search almost any celebrity's social media, especially before many of them were called out, and you will see a strange amount of pictures and comments with children and pizza. The references to pizza and children is through the roof. Especially in the order and combination that they are using the words in. You literally have to be blind not to see that they are mocking you or communicating about sexually abusing children, or worse. Another reference that many do not talk about is the reference with Pizza representing children and the Pizza oven, which actually represents an alter to Baal or Moloch, which is a part of the Satanic ritualistic child sacrificial ceremonies that goes as far back as records show and are even included in the Bible. Archeologist are now finding more and more proof that child sexual abuse and child sacrifice has been going on for centuries and is linked to elite families and their ritual practices that formed societal classes throughout history with the elite abusing and sacrificing children to their gods, whether that be Baal, Moloch, or Lucifer himself. Now you see grooming and children being sexualized and even rap*d in their own schools. They are coming for your children and we need to stand up and stop it. Enough talking about it, it's time to act before we let this continue any longer. We need to actually start doing more to protect these kids. One question I will leave you with to ask yourself is, now that we know that they are definitely abusing and trafficking children, especially since RFK Jr. just confirmed that even the Biden/Harris Administration and their own HHS was involved in the trafficking of children, it's not why would they use a secret language or code words to communicate, the real question is, "Why wouldn't they?" There are no coincidences.
6:07

Sensitive content

The ELITE have been MOCKING YOU right to YOUR FACE and TRAFFICKING CHILDREN for DECADES, and you never even NOTICED. This is how this Satanic group of elite child predators have been operating a global child trafficking operation right out in the open, through our own government, while opening front companies and NGOs and using them to steal your hard earned taxpayer dollars through these fronts and NGOs for themselves and to sell children all around the world. What makes this even worse is that most of these fronts, NGOs, and non-profits were set up and supposed to help children, like the Clinton Foundation, the Ratcliffe Foundation, or any one of Oprah's child foundations, etc., but, in fact, they all do the exact opposite and facilitate the trafficking and abuse of children to some of the most wealthy elite around the world. This is why the Epstein and the Diddy case are so important to the future of America and the rest of the world and to end child trafficking all together. Since 1996, the FBI logged on record, the first time "Pizza" has been used as a form of communication to signify child po*n, pedophil*a, or anything involving the sexual abuse of children. There are many other numerous symbols and words to specify the exact preferences of that particular person and what type of fetish and child that they are into. This is where the famous "PizzaGate" term stems from and the whole Comet Ping Pong incident with James Alefantis. Then come to find out that members of our own government at the time were using these same secret comms to communicate with each other including, The Podestas, Hillary Clinton, and even Barack Obama, who had a very strange email referring to $65,000 dollars worth of "Hot Dogs" which is also another preference word that signifies a child type and secret comm used that is well known. The fact is that the way these people operate and according to their occult practices and sick narcissistic ways, they have to and enjoy mocking you to your face while communicating with others at the same time. This is more than apparent through all types of media, music, cartoons, basically anything in the mainstream media. Just pay attention and you will see it everywhere. From Ellen at the 2014 Grammys handing out "Pizza," to the way her stage set for her now cancelled T.V. show, "Ellen," that resembled Epstein's island with the blue and white patterns like Epstein's temple and the palm trees was a 1 to 1 match of the horrific island of horrors. You can search almost any celebrity's social media, especially before many of them were called out, and you will see a strange amount of pictures and comments with children and pizza. The references to pizza and children is through the roof. Especially in the order and combination that they are using the words in. You literally have to be blind not to see that they are mocking you or communicating about sexually abusing children, or worse. Another reference that many do not talk about is the reference with Pizza representing children and the Pizza oven, which actually represents an alter to Baal or Moloch, which is a part of the Satanic ritualistic child sacrificial ceremonies that goes as far back as records show and are even included in the Bible. Archeologist are now finding more and more proof that child sexual abuse and child sacrifice has been going on for centuries and is linked to elite families and their ritual practices that formed societal classes throughout history with the elite abusing and sacrificing children to their gods, whether that be Baal, Moloch, or Lucifer himself. Now you see grooming and children being sexualized and even rap*d in their own schools. They are coming for your children and we need to stand up and stop it. Enough talking about it, it's time to act before we let this continue any longer. We need to actually start doing more to protect these kids. One question I will leave you with to ask yourself is, now that we know that they are definitely abusing and trafficking children, especially since RFK Jr. just confirmed that even the Biden/Harris Administration and their own HHS was involved in the trafficking of children, it's not why would they use a secret language or code words to communicate, the real question is, "Why wouldn't they?" There are no coincidences.

The SCIF

52,312 次观看 • 1 年前

"Come on, folks. Do we see what's playing out here? Marbury v. Mad might have just brought down the Commissioner of the Boston Police Department." - Towel, November 6, 2025 Rule #1 in Massachusetts politics right now; Do not mess with Attorney Corey Hopkins. She's going to get barred here just to reform the government (then I'll become her paralegal and we'll submit public records requests all day). Good plan. TRANSCRIPT (from Towel's coverage of the letter in question, uncovered by Attorney Hopkins); Hello and good evening. It is just past 6 p.m. on Monday, November 3rd, 2025. My name is Grant Smith-Ellis, and I'm back with you again for another developing news update, this time related to Boston Police Commissioner Cox responding to a developing series of scandals, in particular related to former Boston Police Officer—well, first former Canton Police Officer, then former Boston Police Officer—Kelly Dever. Now, Kelly Dever was an integral witness during the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial about one specific series of events in the early morning of January 29, 2022—not really related to John's death per se, but related to the then-chief of the Canton Police Department, Ken Berkowitz, who was also potentially the person that went to the FBI about Brian Tully's MSP unit, Massachusetts State Police unit, detailed to the Norfolk DA, who were the same people that investigated Karen Read for John's death. Berkowitz was the same person who apparently went to the FBI in 2022 about Tully's unit through John Fanning covering up Sandra Birchmore's death at the hands of former Stoughton PD officer Matthew Farwell. Okay, Ken Berkowitz and Brian Higgins—then undercover ATF agent who himself had been in a relationship of some kind, we'll call it that, with Karen in the months before John's death. That's a whole story we will not get into. The point is, Higgins and Berkowitz go into the sally port. Now, Kelly Dever had been working since, I think it was 12 a.m. on January 28th. She worked—let me make sure I get this right now—she worked at 12 p.m., noon on January 28th to 8 p.m. Then she worked the 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. shift. Okay, she was doing 16 hours over those two days. At like 1:30 a.m., she saw Berkowitz and Higgins—or around there, maybe a little later—go into the area, an area of the Canton PD. Then—and we're going to find out—she had a meeting with Boston Police Commissioner Cox. Now, why did Commissioner Cox get himself in trouble? Well, not because of the interview we're going to watch, but instead because of an interview about a year ago where he said he knew nothing about the Kelly Dever situation or the Karen Read case. All right, now we're going to quickly come to find out that what we're about to hear from the commissioner is not the best answer in light of this little document found by the incredible Marbury v. Madison on X, Corey A. Hopkins, a business litigator based in North Carolina. Towel really likes Marbury v. Madison because, first of all, Marbury v. Madison is an awesome case, and it entrenched the supremacy of the judiciary as to saying what the law is by virtue of the Constitution. Solved a very complex problem related to the Judiciary Act of 1789 and, in particular, the emergence of political parties in 1796 and, in particular, 1800, and a slew of last-minute appointments by President Adams and a refusal by President Jefferson to commission—or one of the refusal by Jefferson's Secretary of State Madison to commission a justice of the peace. But it really was about the supremacy of the judiciary branch. Marbury v. Madison uses a lot of FOIAs, and what you're going to see right here is a FOIA request that resulted in this wonderful little document. And what does this show? All right, this document shows, folks, a letter from Stephen J. Kelleher, who's with the White Collar Public Corruption and Civil Rights Division of the FBI in Boston. It is a letter that Marbury v. Madison obtained via a FOIA, and it shows the DOJ reaching out to Commissioner Cox and saying, "Sir, hope all is well. Just a reminder—this was on February 22nd, 2024. The documents were released to the DA's office late last night." This has to do with federal documents about the investigation of John's death by the MSP unit run by Brian Tully working for the Norfolk DA. "The officer we spoke about is Kelly Dever. If you have any questions at all, feel free to call me. Vr. Steve." Okay, folks, this proves that Commissioner Cox was told about Kelly Dever and documents related to her testimony and what she saw Higgins and Berkowitz doing—which I don't think was related to John's death, but it's just embarrassing for Higgins. He was an undercover ATF agent, and embarrassing for Berkowitz. And although Berkowitz is now dead, he was either dying or not dead in 2024. And clearly, this was embarrassing, okay, to the Canton Police Chief, to the Boston Police, to Higgins, to all these people. All right. And so we see here, Cox knows about it. Cox then goes on a few months later—I think it was either after, I think it was right after Karen's second trial, but it was some months after this initial email was sent to Cox. And Cox, in his infinite wisdom, tells Boston 25 or Channel 5 or whatever it was at a news conference that he's basically never heard of Kelly Dever or the Karen Read and John O'Keefe case. Okay, that was a stupid thing to say because then this FOIA comes out in recent weeks. That leads to Alan Jackson to send a Brady letter to Mayor Michelle Wu, the Democratic mayor of Boston running unopposed in the coming election, saying that Cox should be on the Brady list. I think it was—yes, because Cox was not forthcoming about what he was told by the feds about Dever. Okay, now this is Cox's response. I just want to show you how bad of a response this is. Okay, this is a clip via Boston 25, just Cox's comment on these new developments, which—although Alan Jackson's Brady letter is what Cox was asked for comment on—even Alan Jackson himself has rightfully so given credit to Marbury v. Madison for their excellent find on this FOIA document that was unearthed. And this could cost Cox his position. All right, the Democrats in Boston already have the eye of President Trump. The DOJ is all over this unit, in my opinion, and the cover-up of Birchmore's death. Look at the DOJ's pattern of indictments, okay? Recently, not just the Jessica LeClair leaks, but also Sheriff Tompkins and other major Democrats. Look at what's going on here, folks. Think about the larger picture—the most recent indictment, the superseding indictment of Matt Farwell for the murder of Sandra Birchmore's unborn child. It's all coming together. And Commissioner Cox's answer is bad. And that's why I want to analyze it. It's not just like inappropriate. It is a bad, bad, bad answer. When I heard it, I had to immediately make a video to analyze it because that's how bad this answer is. It's short, but I'm going to tell you how bad it is after we listen to it. "But what I need, you know, it's not to be asked this question ever again because it's not—it has to pertain to anything to do with the police department. My condolences to the O'Keefe family for, you know, what they've gone through. And because we did lose a department member. But outside of that, this has nothing to do with us. And I'm not going to speak with this again." Okay, let me just make something clear. I'm not saying he was wrong. It's not wrong to invoke John's name. But doing it that way—that's grotesque. Okay, he didn't answer the question. He basically refused to do so. And again, if you didn't hear the statement—although I'm sure you did—he said, "What I need is to not be asked this question ever again pertaining to anything to do with the police department." What? "My condolences to the O'Keefe family for what they've gone through because we did lose a department member." John O'Keefe was an honorable member of the Boston PD and the SA offenders unit. "But outside of that, this has nothing to do with us, the Boston PD, and I'm not going to speak on this again." No, no, no, no—that you just cost yourself your job right there. I'm sorry. That was a terrible, terrible answer. I'm sorry for the volume. I'm just running it back. Terrible answer. The worst possible answer. You may well have just cost yourself your job because you ducked the question. Everyone knows that the question is about this document. Anyone following this knows. The implications are what Dever knew about Berkowitz and Higgins, and maybe that's not the most serious thing. But as President Nixon said, it is not the crime, it's the cover-up. Dever, whatever she did—not wanting to talk about certain things about Higgins and Berkowitz, unrelated to John's death, just because it's kind of embarrassing—that is not a problem really. It's a minor thing. You know what's a big deal? Dever definitely got Brady-listed or whatever because her testimony was a little weird. I think Alan Jackson also pressured her a little bit. But whatever, that's not the point here. Cox's response—that was bad. That was bad PR. That's like the kind of thing when Prince Andrew was forced to go out and do an interview with BBC One about Epstein, and it just cost him all his titles because he got no PR help; he got sandbagged. That kind of thing—somebody didn't prep him, or the people he was talking to didn't even think this would come up. That's a horrible answer. Twenty seconds can cost you your career if you have done something bad and you answer a tough question like that. It's defensive; it shows you have something to hide; it undermines people's faith in your ability to answer those kind of questions. That's the biggest problem for Commissioner Cox here. Instead of inspiring confidence and making it look like it was nothing or it was just a routine, he couldn't even address the fact that he was made aware in February, in particular, about Kelly Dever and he had knowledge—he had a meeting with her. Let's be clear: He put her on his schedule the very next day. Not only did he have recipient knowledge of what was going on with the federal investigation and the John O'Keefe and Karen Read case—Dever got called into his office the next day, which of course Cox initially tried to play off as just some routine meeting, as if he meets with all 2,600 or whatever of the Boston police force. No. Come on, folks. Come on, folks. Do we see what's playing out here? Marbury v. Madison might have just brought down the Commissioner of the Boston Police Department. My name is Grant Smith-Ellis. Enjoy the rest of your Monday. We'll see what other news comes in today. Sean Good on suspension. Michael Proctor's cell phone gate engulfing the world in a conflagration. Little towel basically running down the street from the masses, trying to insulate himself from the fallout of this God-forsaken situation. Institutional reform is coming—to the Norfolk DA, hopefully throughout the state police—so that the good people in law enforcement can keep helping the vulnerable and that the exploited, no matter how much pressure they come under, continue to speak their truth. And let me just say this: Whenever we stand against the flow of opinion on hotly contested issues, a man, a woman, and a Towel—do what they must in spite of the personal consequences, in spite of the dangers and obstacles and pressures. For that is the basis of all human morality. We will be there for each other in times of struggle. We will be side by side in times of joy. And when everything is on the line and when our principles matter the most, there will be no price too high to pay to center the voices of the unheard, to bring justice to the vulnerable, and to reform this God-forsaken justice system in Massachusetts so that we can all hand down a structural system to our future generations that is worthy of our Constitution, that is worthy of our collective intelligence, and that is worthy of the due reverence we all should be providing to the pursuit of justice. My name is Grant Smith-Ellis. Until next time, you're a towel, I am as well. Be well. God bless.
12:38

"Come on, folks. Do we see what's playing out here? Marbury v. Mad might have just brought down the Commissioner of the Boston Police Department." - Towel, November 6, 2025 Rule #1 in Massachusetts politics right now; Do not mess with Attorney Corey Hopkins. She's going to get barred here just to reform the government (then I'll become her paralegal and we'll submit public records requests all day). Good plan. TRANSCRIPT (from Towel's coverage of the letter in question, uncovered by Attorney Hopkins); Hello and good evening. It is just past 6 p.m. on Monday, November 3rd, 2025. My name is Grant Smith-Ellis, and I'm back with you again for another developing news update, this time related to Boston Police Commissioner Cox responding to a developing series of scandals, in particular related to former Boston Police Officer—well, first former Canton Police Officer, then former Boston Police Officer—Kelly Dever. Now, Kelly Dever was an integral witness during the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial about one specific series of events in the early morning of January 29, 2022—not really related to John's death per se, but related to the then-chief of the Canton Police Department, Ken Berkowitz, who was also potentially the person that went to the FBI about Brian Tully's MSP unit, Massachusetts State Police unit, detailed to the Norfolk DA, who were the same people that investigated Karen Read for John's death. Berkowitz was the same person who apparently went to the FBI in 2022 about Tully's unit through John Fanning covering up Sandra Birchmore's death at the hands of former Stoughton PD officer Matthew Farwell. Okay, Ken Berkowitz and Brian Higgins—then undercover ATF agent who himself had been in a relationship of some kind, we'll call it that, with Karen in the months before John's death. That's a whole story we will not get into. The point is, Higgins and Berkowitz go into the sally port. Now, Kelly Dever had been working since, I think it was 12 a.m. on January 28th. She worked—let me make sure I get this right now—she worked at 12 p.m., noon on January 28th to 8 p.m. Then she worked the 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. shift. Okay, she was doing 16 hours over those two days. At like 1:30 a.m., she saw Berkowitz and Higgins—or around there, maybe a little later—go into the area, an area of the Canton PD. Then—and we're going to find out—she had a meeting with Boston Police Commissioner Cox. Now, why did Commissioner Cox get himself in trouble? Well, not because of the interview we're going to watch, but instead because of an interview about a year ago where he said he knew nothing about the Kelly Dever situation or the Karen Read case. All right, now we're going to quickly come to find out that what we're about to hear from the commissioner is not the best answer in light of this little document found by the incredible Marbury v. Madison on X, Corey A. Hopkins, a business litigator based in North Carolina. Towel really likes Marbury v. Madison because, first of all, Marbury v. Madison is an awesome case, and it entrenched the supremacy of the judiciary as to saying what the law is by virtue of the Constitution. Solved a very complex problem related to the Judiciary Act of 1789 and, in particular, the emergence of political parties in 1796 and, in particular, 1800, and a slew of last-minute appointments by President Adams and a refusal by President Jefferson to commission—or one of the refusal by Jefferson's Secretary of State Madison to commission a justice of the peace. But it really was about the supremacy of the judiciary branch. Marbury v. Madison uses a lot of FOIAs, and what you're going to see right here is a FOIA request that resulted in this wonderful little document. And what does this show? All right, this document shows, folks, a letter from Stephen J. Kelleher, who's with the White Collar Public Corruption and Civil Rights Division of the FBI in Boston. It is a letter that Marbury v. Madison obtained via a FOIA, and it shows the DOJ reaching out to Commissioner Cox and saying, "Sir, hope all is well. Just a reminder—this was on February 22nd, 2024. The documents were released to the DA's office late last night." This has to do with federal documents about the investigation of John's death by the MSP unit run by Brian Tully working for the Norfolk DA. "The officer we spoke about is Kelly Dever. If you have any questions at all, feel free to call me. Vr. Steve." Okay, folks, this proves that Commissioner Cox was told about Kelly Dever and documents related to her testimony and what she saw Higgins and Berkowitz doing—which I don't think was related to John's death, but it's just embarrassing for Higgins. He was an undercover ATF agent, and embarrassing for Berkowitz. And although Berkowitz is now dead, he was either dying or not dead in 2024. And clearly, this was embarrassing, okay, to the Canton Police Chief, to the Boston Police, to Higgins, to all these people. All right. And so we see here, Cox knows about it. Cox then goes on a few months later—I think it was either after, I think it was right after Karen's second trial, but it was some months after this initial email was sent to Cox. And Cox, in his infinite wisdom, tells Boston 25 or Channel 5 or whatever it was at a news conference that he's basically never heard of Kelly Dever or the Karen Read and John O'Keefe case. Okay, that was a stupid thing to say because then this FOIA comes out in recent weeks. That leads to Alan Jackson to send a Brady letter to Mayor Michelle Wu, the Democratic mayor of Boston running unopposed in the coming election, saying that Cox should be on the Brady list. I think it was—yes, because Cox was not forthcoming about what he was told by the feds about Dever. Okay, now this is Cox's response. I just want to show you how bad of a response this is. Okay, this is a clip via Boston 25, just Cox's comment on these new developments, which—although Alan Jackson's Brady letter is what Cox was asked for comment on—even Alan Jackson himself has rightfully so given credit to Marbury v. Madison for their excellent find on this FOIA document that was unearthed. And this could cost Cox his position. All right, the Democrats in Boston already have the eye of President Trump. The DOJ is all over this unit, in my opinion, and the cover-up of Birchmore's death. Look at the DOJ's pattern of indictments, okay? Recently, not just the Jessica LeClair leaks, but also Sheriff Tompkins and other major Democrats. Look at what's going on here, folks. Think about the larger picture—the most recent indictment, the superseding indictment of Matt Farwell for the murder of Sandra Birchmore's unborn child. It's all coming together. And Commissioner Cox's answer is bad. And that's why I want to analyze it. It's not just like inappropriate. It is a bad, bad, bad answer. When I heard it, I had to immediately make a video to analyze it because that's how bad this answer is. It's short, but I'm going to tell you how bad it is after we listen to it. "But what I need, you know, it's not to be asked this question ever again because it's not—it has to pertain to anything to do with the police department. My condolences to the O'Keefe family for, you know, what they've gone through. And because we did lose a department member. But outside of that, this has nothing to do with us. And I'm not going to speak with this again." Okay, let me just make something clear. I'm not saying he was wrong. It's not wrong to invoke John's name. But doing it that way—that's grotesque. Okay, he didn't answer the question. He basically refused to do so. And again, if you didn't hear the statement—although I'm sure you did—he said, "What I need is to not be asked this question ever again pertaining to anything to do with the police department." What? "My condolences to the O'Keefe family for what they've gone through because we did lose a department member." John O'Keefe was an honorable member of the Boston PD and the SA offenders unit. "But outside of that, this has nothing to do with us, the Boston PD, and I'm not going to speak on this again." No, no, no, no—that you just cost yourself your job right there. I'm sorry. That was a terrible, terrible answer. I'm sorry for the volume. I'm just running it back. Terrible answer. The worst possible answer. You may well have just cost yourself your job because you ducked the question. Everyone knows that the question is about this document. Anyone following this knows. The implications are what Dever knew about Berkowitz and Higgins, and maybe that's not the most serious thing. But as President Nixon said, it is not the crime, it's the cover-up. Dever, whatever she did—not wanting to talk about certain things about Higgins and Berkowitz, unrelated to John's death, just because it's kind of embarrassing—that is not a problem really. It's a minor thing. You know what's a big deal? Dever definitely got Brady-listed or whatever because her testimony was a little weird. I think Alan Jackson also pressured her a little bit. But whatever, that's not the point here. Cox's response—that was bad. That was bad PR. That's like the kind of thing when Prince Andrew was forced to go out and do an interview with BBC One about Epstein, and it just cost him all his titles because he got no PR help; he got sandbagged. That kind of thing—somebody didn't prep him, or the people he was talking to didn't even think this would come up. That's a horrible answer. Twenty seconds can cost you your career if you have done something bad and you answer a tough question like that. It's defensive; it shows you have something to hide; it undermines people's faith in your ability to answer those kind of questions. That's the biggest problem for Commissioner Cox here. Instead of inspiring confidence and making it look like it was nothing or it was just a routine, he couldn't even address the fact that he was made aware in February, in particular, about Kelly Dever and he had knowledge—he had a meeting with her. Let's be clear: He put her on his schedule the very next day. Not only did he have recipient knowledge of what was going on with the federal investigation and the John O'Keefe and Karen Read case—Dever got called into his office the next day, which of course Cox initially tried to play off as just some routine meeting, as if he meets with all 2,600 or whatever of the Boston police force. No. Come on, folks. Come on, folks. Do we see what's playing out here? Marbury v. Madison might have just brought down the Commissioner of the Boston Police Department. My name is Grant Smith-Ellis. Enjoy the rest of your Monday. We'll see what other news comes in today. Sean Good on suspension. Michael Proctor's cell phone gate engulfing the world in a conflagration. Little towel basically running down the street from the masses, trying to insulate himself from the fallout of this God-forsaken situation. Institutional reform is coming—to the Norfolk DA, hopefully throughout the state police—so that the good people in law enforcement can keep helping the vulnerable and that the exploited, no matter how much pressure they come under, continue to speak their truth. And let me just say this: Whenever we stand against the flow of opinion on hotly contested issues, a man, a woman, and a Towel—do what they must in spite of the personal consequences, in spite of the dangers and obstacles and pressures. For that is the basis of all human morality. We will be there for each other in times of struggle. We will be side by side in times of joy. And when everything is on the line and when our principles matter the most, there will be no price too high to pay to center the voices of the unheard, to bring justice to the vulnerable, and to reform this God-forsaken justice system in Massachusetts so that we can all hand down a structural system to our future generations that is worthy of our Constitution, that is worthy of our collective intelligence, and that is worthy of the due reverence we all should be providing to the pursuit of justice. My name is Grant Smith-Ellis. Until next time, you're a towel, I am as well. Be well. God bless.

Grant Smith Ellis

13,006 次观看 • 7 个月前