Show Notes and Transcript
Richard Vobes spent years as The Bald Explorer, for a decade he travelled throughout England and uploaded his experiences on his popular YouTube channel to show English culture and history.
A year ago he changed tack and begun to comment on the encroaching tyranny we are all facing and this is now his primary focus.
He joins Hearts of Oak to discuss 'Should we be Disruptive?'
This is the name of one of his YouTube playlists and is the question many of us are now asking ourselves.
We find ourselves in a post party political, post legal system, post police society, when trust in our institutions collapses, what should our response be?
Richard gives his views on where these leave us, sows some seeds of positivity and gives his thoughts on how we move forward.
Richard Vobes, also known as The Bald Explorer is a film maker and amateur historian with a very popular YouTube channel.
He has noticed that the world is an odd place at the moment and everything you thought you knew is clearly not right.
Richard uses his channel to express concerns over the way things are in the world. Particularly that which affects us here in England.
He ponders the mysteries, questions the narrative and tries to get to the truth, hoping to uncover some of the secrets.
Richard proclaims he is not an expert, but just uses a little critical thinking, some common sense added with a touch of the whimsical.
Connect with Richard...
YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/@RichardVobes
WEBSITE: https://richardvobes.com/
Interview recorded 15.11.23
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20
To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/
Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/
Transcript(Hearts of Oak)
Richard Vobes. It is wonderful to have you with us. Thanks so much for your time today.
Richard Vobes
Oh, it's my pleasure. Absolute pleasure. Thank you very much, Peter, for asking me.
Not at all. It's great to have you on.
And I've actually seen you recently, and maybe for the viewers, people can find you.
Mainly, I think your focus is on your YouTube channel, is @RichardVobes, there on the screen and the links are in the description and we're going to look at one of your, I think one of your set of videos was 'Should we be Disruptive?' and that opens up a whole range of issues, that playlist you've done, but for the viewers and listeners, a lot of our US based viewers and listeners may not have come across you, you go under many different titles, English Couple, The Bald Explorer, and where you explore British history.
Traveling all over and looking at what it is to be English and understand that.
You started that back in 2011, I think, so 13 years ago.
But over the last year, you've moved and you did a video on it to highlight that you are moving into more opinion pieces and to give your thoughts on, I guess, the tyranny which we all face.
And a range of your videos all about common law, which we'll maybe touch on as something which I really have stayed away from, talk about privacy, King Charles to attend COP28, why are so many airline pilots dying, the fear monster is dying, time to take back control.
I mean, a lot of the issues and areas that we certainly address here at Hearts of Oak.
But maybe, first of all, to start with, that was a big change and a big change in focus from actually exploring British history, looking at England, and actually you've changed your focus and that change of focus has come with a massive change in reach as well and increase maybe we can start there before we get into 'Should we be Disruptive' and so tell us about that change and what triggered it and what that has meant.
Well as you said, and thank you again for bringing me on to your program, my original focus was looking at the country I live in, the country I love, which is England, and heritage, landscape, nature, and all those sort of things.
Initially, I was quite interested in the fact that England was kind of being written out of history.
We were Great Britain, but there was Scotland and there was Wales.
But if you were English, it became a difficult thing for some reason.
And I wanted to reclaim the flag and say, what's wrong with proud of being English?
Not for any overly national interest, just to say, look at the beautiful buildings, look at the wonderful geology and the landscape, and of course, the nature.
But as I was making my videos, I became more and more aware that actually we were building over and destroying this wonderful land with lots of new builds whose architecture was quite bland and quite mean and smaller and smaller and it was all about money and we'd sort of lost I think a lot of our heritage and the things that people had fought for in the wars and then of course that made me very much aware that the government was pushing ideas down that nobody really wanted.
And if I started to talk about some of these one world government policies that were influencing our government and then being pushed on us, I couldn't find very many people who'd sort of asked for them other than those that were arguing for the global warming to be debated more.
But it was always on one side.
So I found my audience just didn't want to talk about, if I mentioned, you know, is, questioned, is global warming a thing as it's been portrayed, man-made global warming.
People would either suddenly go, I'm not interested in your channel, just like that, because I was questioning it, and they would whiz off, and same with friends, and then because we went through Brexit, did you want to be in the EU or out of the EU, and that became such a polarized thing, you couldn't say, well actually that's quite good about the EU and that's quite good about not being in the EU. It was either in or out.
And of course the referendum forced you to make a decision if you wanted to take part in it.
And I had my ideas because I'm old enough to remember before we were in it and thought well actually you know we did have an empire, not that I'm arguing for that necessarily, but we are able to stand on our own two feet and we don't need to keep acquiescing to the something that fits other countries that may not fit us.
But again it was one of those things that you could not question or if you fell on the wrong side of the narrative you were always deemed to be stupid and so I just accepted that I was obviously stupid for my beliefs.
Then of course we went through the the period of three years ago when people were locked in their houses because something was floating about in the air that we couldn't see and was on every surface and was liable to kill left, right and centre.
And if you spoke again against that, the strange effect of the general public of not wanting to address it or changing or questioning the narrative, even though eminent scientists were saying, hang on, we've got this Great Barrington Declaration that says, should we do this approach, maybe there's another science.
And then we continually got the notion that no no, the science is fixed or we're following the science and of course now all of that is up for question but some of us were questioning it early on but were shut down because of that.
And so we came to last year, about a year ago, this month actually in which I was watching GB News and Neil Oliver was asking about the fuel crisis that we'd seen to be coming into because there was a war going on which nobody talks about at the moment because there's another war going on.
So people have sort of got distracted somewhere else.
But anyway we're talking about the fuel crisis and he said well people are suffering, what would happen if nobody paid their bill? And I thought, what a clever idea, you know, people power, because I've always thought grassroots is the key, really, to a lot of things.
So I made a video saying, is he right?
And suddenly, and that was so different from what I was doing, but where I would get, say, I don't know, 2,000 to 3,000 views on a video.
If I was lucky, over a week, I got 100,000 views over a matter of days.
And I followed it up with a couple of others on a similar vein.
And suddenly I was then in the opinion market and going down the rabbit holes and regurgitating my thoughts on this.
And the audience were just coming in swathes.
And very soon I'd hit the 100,000 mark and we're something like 180,000 subscribers now.
Which validated that there is an audience who desperately want to discuss this, talk about it, think about it, and they already knew the problems.
And some people were coming in, because people were saying, you know, Richard, you're a bit like the Alan Titchmarsh of the conspiracy theorists, because you're sort of Mr.
Nice Guy, but you're dropping in the fact that the nasty people want to depopulate us.
And so it became something that people could share with people who were perhaps not awakened to those ideas, which was great.
And it was, I never planned any of this.
So, yeah, so that was the sudden growth. And here am I, pretty much a year later, going, wow, what a journey.
I love it when things happen you don't plan it. Same here, my background in politics we mentioned the wonderful Liz Phillips and of course working with her in politics and then moving over and and I've loved part of the media side of engaging with people that we will probably have very similar views on many issues yet you focus on YouTube, we focus on alternate platforms, you're more UK based in England where we're a lot of European, international and it's lovely how those connect together.
But if I can ask you, the whole issue of being disruptive and it's something which I think we've all thought about over the tyranny which we have faced under COVID in the last three years and there are a number of areas but I think the political pantomime we have seen in the last few days and I think we see Westminster, the national politics set up to actually have consensus and just keep it going, don't rock the boat, don't come in with massive alternative views and you just step by step ticks over and it's fun when you see someone actually calling the government out like what has happened, not that I believe we'll see any change.
How do you see that kind of national politics? Are we purely post-party politics?
Did you engage in politics? Do you engage less now? I mean how do you see that kind of national political side happening?
Well, going back, as you say, did I engage in politics?
I mean, you know, growing up, you're aware my parents always voted conservative.
I think because of my interest in landscape, nature and heritage, and living on the south coast here in a fairly affluent town, it felt perfectly normal to vote conservative.
I thought, and I've never been terribly political in the past, I always assumed that the Conservatives were about conserving things, as in the name, and keeping traditions and customs and all of that.
And of course in recent times I've seen that that's not what they're about at all.
And so that's questioned now when I've gone into the voting booth and thought, well, what am I actually voting for?
But then I look at the other party and you think of the Labour Party as the only opposition that's likely to make a big difference and get in.
And we've seen how that's been changed from what it originally was.
And my sister is very much a labour person, she works in the NHS, so she's very much in believing the rights of people and of workers and those sort of things.
And I've been self-employed, so of course I've been self-employed most of my life, So I believed in a small capitalist society in which independent sole traders, small family-run businesses can thrive.
And I'm totally against these very large corporations that seem to dominate the landscape in every town and across the world and knocking out the small independents.
So it's very difficult to find a home now, I think, if you are an independent, self-employed person because none of the parties represent me.
Then, of course, you've got, as I have gone through this last year's journey, of realizing, that as individuals, as sovereign people, we are living under corporations, that we live now in corporate Britain here and that the government isn't even an assembly.
It isn't what you think it is. It is this for-profit corporation and when you look at both parties, none of them represent the two sides, shall we say, of a country anymore.
They seem to be, you've either got tyranny or increased tyranny it seems to me and depending on where you want to put. So and the other thing is, When we vote, we're voting for a pre-selected bunch of nutters, it seems to me, rather than electing our own people who we could vote for.
And it seems if you're sovereign, you should be electing people in your area, not those that have been put up and says, well, I'm going to be your candidate and you've got no choice.
And I think the whole system is wrong. and now I just feel, and I suppose I've come to this because of the huge awakening, that the whole parliament system itself, the whole two-tier system and the MPs, and everything, is over.
And it's none of the above and we need a completely new way of governing or managing, I suppose, administrating the country rather than this this government that's decided that it is sovereign and not the people that they are our masters and that we somehow are their servants and I can't square that anymore and and you know using things like common law or natural law, just the logic of that seems to harmonize with me.
So man comes first, man is on the planet, and he looks about and he goes, well, if we don't organize ourselves, we may not get stuff done.
It would be better if we could organize it ourselves.
So let's arrange for a bunch of people to sort of run something like a parliament.
But it means that man's organized that, so man must come first.
The creator is in charge, not the created, But it does seem now that the creation is coming back and saying, well, actually, the monster is now in charge, and I think that that is over.
And the more we realize that we, the people, have the power, hence being disruptive to them, and claiming back our responsibilities, what we ought to do, because otherwise we are going down, as we've all seen, a very dark passage in the history of humanity.
The whole common law is intriguing and I've had many conversations with Liz on this and I am extremely sceptical of it.
You know what it's like, whenever you do a lot of interviews, a lot of topics, there are only so many things you can actually delve into and understand.
I'm down enough rabbit holes without necessarily going down another and that's something I've left to the side.
But kind of I see that we are fighting within the system and I don't think that we can use the legal system on our side or the political system on our side.
And this whole concept of common law that actually we can remove ourselves from that system and I'm still trying to work through that.
And it's not that I completely disagree with it, it's that I haven't had the time to delve into it.
So maybe touch on that and why is that a solution and part of the disruptive model?
Well, I think, well let me first of all explain, I'm, you know, I've only been doing this a year and as like you, you know, you touch on so many subjects but common law keeps coming up or natural law, God's law, so many variations of it, the freeman of the land thing, the law of admiralty, there's so much to it and I interviewed a group, the common law group, in Herefordshire only yesterday in the video.
Or the day before it went out yesterday, and I asked them plainly, you know, can you give me a definition of common law that I can hand to the viewers? And they said it's common sense.
It is ultimately, when it comes down to it, is common, ruling by common sense in a way.
What makes logical sense to you and I, if we're all, for example, if we're all born equal, i.e.
We come into this world with nothing, what gives anybody else the right to be above us and to say you will be my slave unless we agree to it?
And now, in life, we do agree that we will acquiesce to certain things because it makes sense to.
So for example having rules of the road, so here in in England we drive on the left and it seems sensible that if everybody drives on the left we're not going to bump into each other as we drive up and down the roads because the coming traffic will also be driving on our right but to them it's the left if you see what I mean and of course you have that in different in different countries.
So some rules just make perfect sense that we can agree to rather than just saying we'll drive any old where whatever we like because we're all just sovereign individuals.
So clearly we need a set of rules that make sense but it's where we have the rules get tied up into these things called acts and legislation.
The legal and you've got legalese, you've got the people who are administering this, taking two oaths to a private bar guild association, a guild of your judges, your clerks of the court, your solicitors and barristers, who are effectively, again, part of a corporate world that are there to make money.
And of course, the history of all of this goes right back to Roman times, to the Vatican, part of canon law, in which they needed a flat, I'm going to put it like this, they needed a flat earth, but not the flat earth as in flat earth theory about the planet, but putting people on paper so that they can be administered.
So, we as living people with blood in us and brains and flesh and all of that, the corporations can't deal with us.
They need to have a fiction version of us, which is why we have capitalized names.
And they deal with this. And we sort of act as the agent for these fictionalized names. So the Richard Vobes that you see on a bit of paper isn't really me, it's just a representation of me.
They can deal with us on paper and it's all done on paper.
I mean everything is done on paper. We always have to either agree to something or we rebut something with parking fines and poll tax, council tax and all of that, when you go into the courts.
And acts are, you know, it's theatre.
That's why it's called an act. It's not law.
Law is more to do with things that are immutable. You know, the law of gravity, you can't change the law of gravity.
Common sense, in a way, is common to most people.
Don't hurt someone, don't murder somebody, because you're damaging them, you're hurting them, you wouldn't want it to happen to you.
So, I think we can live by a number of very simple policies, if I can use that word, or laws would be better, rather than having a whole load of legislation that most of us don't know what are.
And we only have to look at the solicitors when you go into their rooms, and they've got all these books of case studies and laws and this and that.
And how is man ever supposed to memorize all of this and try and stay on the right side?
You can't. But you can say, if you do no harm, do no damage.
That's something very easy. and if you have a problem...
We could go back to the system that common law used to have and have members of our community, our peers, 12 juries, to sort of make the decision whether we've been behaving properly or even if the law itself is sensible because some laws that get made might not be sensible.
You know, some of the legislation we've got, if you accidentally drive into a bus lane at night time and there's no traffic and a camera takes a photograph of you.
Where's the crime really? Where's the victim? No one's been hurt.
And yet you'll get a ticket for whatever it is, 50 quid, 100 quid, and then a whole load of things if you don't pay.
And yet all you've done is you've travelled a conveyance on tarmac in a painted box that someone's painted and you've been penalised when there's no vehicle.
You know, so some of it is just ridiculous and you're 12 just men and women sitting around ought to be able to say, well, actually, you know, that's a stupid rule. If it's three o'clock at night, there's no other traffic.
Where's the damage? Where's the pain? Why are we stressing people?
But we have that system. And of course, now we have cameras everywhere and we have these rules coming in, which are stopping people from traveling one side of their town to another.
And people are taking the biometrics in the supermarkets.
And we have this advent of the CBDCs, the Central Bank Digital Currencies, programmable money, that somebody else could make the decision whether you have the right to buy something or not.
Well, this is absolute tyranny and again, this is not humane.
It's just anti-human policies.
So I think a much simpler system can be worked and sensible people with common sense could work that out.
We've, looking at politics, we've seen fewer and fewer people engaging in the process and I think when I grew up I would have been more of the Australian, you know, you should make it mandatory, everyone should participate, but then when you look at the candidates and you realise actually one, it doesn't make any difference and two, there's no one there that actually believes or stands up for anything, which I think is right in society.
I mean, where does that go? Because you look over in France, you've got the yellow vest, you've got actually on the streets, and it's part of French culture to push back, to remove yourself from the labour market, to fight back.
We kind of have a more shrug of the shoulders.
And when I look at the political, I think, how low does that dissent in terms of not engaging in the political system, and how bad does that have to be until something changes?
And it's simply just not voting. Is that enough disruption to the system to bring any change?
Well I think one of the problems is that we have, and I think it is intentional, we have been, dumbed down, we've lost interest in our local environment.
We used to have radio stations, local radio stations, not regional radio stations, that talked about the things that went on in our environment.
We used to have local papers.
And slowly and slowly, I mean, the internet sort of killed a lot of that because podcasts and other things came along, of course.
And we've just taken our eye off the ball so that at a local level, the councils can start to bring in measures.
We've lost that sense of going to a council meeting and thinking of the town as our town or our village, whatever, and saying actually, no, I don't want that.
You know, every now and again, I'll see a lamppost with a notice that they have to put out to say, oh, we're going to make these changes to this road or we're going, you know, these people have got a, they want to put an extension on which will block out the sun of your house.
But most people aren't reading them.
People have lost that sense of the importance of being active in their community.
And we've all been distracted with all this technology and the games that people can play and the, you know, the Netflix series is, and more and more the government said, well, we'll do that for you.
We'll do that for you. You don't have to worry about that, we'll do it.
And I feel that we're in this process now, or this moment in time now, where we've really got to wake up and say, and take back the responsibility for things again, and not continually say, oh, the government should do this for us, or the council should be doing that.
You see some litter on the ground, you should pick it up.
We should just get back into that mode of this is our road, this is our street, this is our neighbours, these are our people. We've lost all of that.
We used to have youth clubs that kids would go and do things together.
Now they're stuck behind their phones.
Again, I think that this is, not only is it progression of technology, but I think it's also hugely manipulated that we are not engaged in the way we saw during the pandemic that a lot of the pubs were closing, but they were closing before that you know the price of of beer and the amount of tax that people are having to pay on basically socializing and being in each other's company in which you would sort of put the world to rights you may not do anything because might have been too blatted to actually do it.
But the general interest in your town, and of course we've seen a lot of migration in which we have people from different places and people also have worked now.
They're moving around the country for their different work.
So then, and jobs aren't lasting as they were.
People change jobs every two or three years instead of being in a job for life.
Now, I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing.
It's just all these different things seem to have made people no longer put roots down in a place and think of it as their place.
You know, you think about the old days when your door was always open, your mum could just pop in, a neighbour would go, oh, come, have you got any sugar?
All this sort of, all this neighbourly stuff. Now, you know, we're very guarded.
We don't know who our neighbours are anymore. We've got those dreadful, well, I haven't, but people have those dreadful doorbells with cameras on so you can see who people are.
Probably sensible to know who people are coming to the door because there might be bailiffs and you may not want to engage with them. But that's taking, you know, all this technology is then taking data from you.
And we see the surveillance technologies going up and all of this and 5G.
But people just are not...
We have slowly and slowly, we have become more isolated from each other and we're not doing what we used to do.
And I think that's the biggest problem. and it's great to see that more and more grassroots initiatives are coming up trying to bring people back together again because it is people power that will push back against the tyranny.
And when you talked about that individualism, I wonder will that get worse with the push against the surveillance system we've seen with that move and I know you've done a video on this recently about privacy and we're trying to regain your privacy, fighting for that.
And we realized that actually we are the commodity, that we are being sold, our information, us, and that is valuable these days.
And kind of, how does that fit in? Because you're right, we don't really know those around us, our neighbours.
We've got that kind of a level of privacy, but on the other side, actually because of the online world and what's creeping in, we have zero privacy and you think it's possible to regain that and that is part of the disruptive mechanism of regaining control over our own lives.
Yeah, well, I mean it is down to us at the end of the day, it is down to us to realize what's going on and I think some people, probably not enough but some people are beginning to become aware that, and the interesting thing about this of course is, I mean I people asked me to do talks at events and in village halls and things and you turn up.
And it's usually people in the 50s plus.
It's people who have one leg in the analogue world.
And of course, they've now got a leg in the digital world. But they can see the benefits of the old days.
The younger people who have been brought up, and my children in their late 20s and early 30s, and I can see how, even though I have my thoughts, they push back against my conspiracy nonsense.
They think that I'm a raving loony.
But they've embraced totally the digital separation world.
And so it seems to me that it is down to this generation of slightly older people, to encourage the rest to get together and do things.
I interviewed a young chap who was 30, 28 actually.
And he said to me, and this was a real eye-opener for me, I'm 60, he said I really envy your age group because you guys can talk to anybody in the street, at a bus stop, you have a conversation with people, you know, behind the, at the till in shops or whatever, you just have, you know, you're not worried about it.
And I said well don't you?
And he said no, young people do not talk to, unless they know each other.
He said even going into the gym where you see the familiar faces, it's just all right, watch out, how you doing?
It's you know it's that because they, they've forgotten how conversation goes, of just starting a conversation with without wanting any more out of it you know.
And I said, but, you know, we'll go down and I'll say, oh, that's a nice hat you've got on there. Or isn't it dreadful weather?
Or do you want to borrow my umbrella? Or cor blimey, let me carry your bag.
You know, those sort of, just that's how I was brought up.
But it does seem that young people aren't able to do that. And that, to me, was a huge eye opener.
And I thought, my God, this is worse than I thought.
Because if people can't, if younger people, where the next generation are unable to communicate on a very just simplistic level of, hi, how are you doing?
Let me help you with that type thing, or have you heard, or, you know, I mean, when I was young, of course, you went to school and you'd been watching, I don't know, the same programs on the television.
Did you see the $6 million man yesterday? Oh yeah, that was great, Steve Austin and his, but now, of course, you've got no references to start conversations with because everybody's playing different games, watching different programs, and they're not joining together to say, oh, did you watch that latest thing from Richard Vobes or whatever, unless they're of a certain age group in a certain bracket.
And that, I think, is a sad thing that we've lost conversation.
And I think it's that, it's having that disgruntled complaining that we do best, you know, cor blimey, you've seen what's, you know, they've just had David Cameron's come back.
Oh my God, next they'll be getting Blair back. Oh no, he won't be, he's going to be head of the WEF.
And it's those sort of things that you want to get people having that communication.
You made a comment earlier about, you know, those notices you see on the lampposts, there's going to be a huge block.
I know the latest one I have, sadly living in London is it's only going to be a 34 story block.
That's going to be just across the way and it keeps getting higher.
And I find people complaining and actually the development that we have is the third time it's been submitted.
And they basically know that if they just keep submitting it with 10 centimetres difference, eventually they'll get their way.
And I think you did a video on a local council, Biggleswick think it was, about having a change and is that possible, people engaging at the local level, is that an example of what can happen or is the kind of the uni-party system still got control of the local council side?
Well I think people generally are a bit like water and that they'll always find the path of least resistance.
So if you can demonstrate a life that is better for them, on the whole, they'll all go along with it. So.
My video about Biggleswick, which is a fictitious place, it's not a real place.
Although it's growing in people's ideas, in reality, is the notion that the people of a town just decided that the anti-human policies coming from the council that they never asked for, should not happen and if they go to the council and simply say, we don't want it and the council say, well you're having it, that the people who pay their council tax allegedly to the council ought to be the ones that make the ultimate decision and if they can't make the ultimate decision because that council won't do it then it strikes me that they should then set up a parallel council, pay the money to that parallel council, make the first council obsolete and nothing to do with them.
Because if you can convince your town, if it's a small town of, I don't know, 100,000 people, and 80,000 of those are pretty much on your side.
And they said, well, actually, yeah, we'll fund it and we'll do it all properly.
We'll do the minutes, we'll have the meetings, we'll do elections.
And we'll do the things we want and those things we don't want.
If we don't want a 20 mile an hour speed limit everywhere, yes, outside the school might be a sensible solution, but it might not be sensible for everywhere.
And if we don't want cameras and if we don't want supermarkets coming in, muscling and getting rid of the independent companies that have our family run and have been here for years and part of our culture and generation and people who've worked there, and then they're putting in cameras and photographs.
If we don't want that, this is our town.
And I think that's what people have got to begin to realize, that they do have the power, we all have the power collectively, and if we can organize ourselves and if we can break away from that spell of looking at the screens and letting other people have wonderful lives, and sort of, you know, the people on the screen have all this lovely life that they're having, we could ditch that and actually have the lovely lives by saying to the council, you're irrelevant.
If you won't do what we will do, we can still have our bins collected, we can still have the lights put on.
We may want to not have those slightly worrying blue LED lights that you keep putting up.
We may not want the 5G, for example, because, to be honest, do we really need to download movies in six seconds?
Is there a nefarious use that they're also being put? What about the radiation?
We should think about that a bit more. After all, we're advancing with this technology.
We don't know what the effect is in 20, 50 years it will have on us.
Maybe we should just slow down a little bit here.
I think people power could do that. And I don't see how the 20 or 30 people who sit around the tables and think they're very important with their pensions and their portfolios in front of them, what they could do to it.
I mean, admittedly, the government might be a bit upset, but if you've got 100,000, people saying, it's our town, these are our buildings, we've paid for these public buildings, and let's face it, the councils themselves are all going bankrupt at the moment, they're all in debt by hundreds of millions, I think people could do a far better job.
Absolutely, I think it's important and it is a call for action for people to re-engage.
I think we have trusted those in charge for too much for too long. It is time to re-engage.
Richard, I love, it's great chatting with you.
One of the things I love about the whole media space, having people on who you actually haven't met and meet for the first time and have on.
I think what you're doing in your channel actually does provide hope because you realize people may be less concerned about the green belt, but 15 minute cities actually are a concern.
And you realize when you connect with people on issues that actually they realize does impact them and they want to speak up, and it is vital that the public are educated and empowered.
I think what you're doing on your channel does exactly that.
So thank you so much for coming on and giving us your time today.
Oh, it's it's my absolute pleasure. and I think we do need optimistic channels out there because there's so many people telling us the problem.
Now is the time to look for the solutions in an optimistic way.
So I appreciate the chance to come on and have an optimistic grumble.
Not at all. Always good. And thank you so much to the viewers.
Make sure, and if you're not following Richard, then make sure and follow him @RichardVobes there on YouTube and take advantage of the information he is putting out. So Richard, once again thank you so much.
Thank you so much Peter, really enjoyed it.
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free