If you don’t want to sign up to sounds you can listen on the terminal using mpv/vlc. Example:
mpv https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001r7jn
Interesting interview - it is incredibly spicy at points. Both of them lost their cool at several points here and I don’t think either of them come out sounding good.
For what it’s worth I think Hallam’s spiel about acting emotionally instead of using critical thinking sounds pretty suspect but clearly he’s found this an effective line to take when campaigning.
This part where Hallam threatens to put Robinson on trial for “treason” after the revolutions happens is particularly sinister. It was a bizarre piece of radio. Reminds me of Trump fans wanting to lock up Hilary.
Haven’t listened but I don’t know, Robinson is an awful little wank and people like him in the media have played a big role in legitimising poisonous ideas from climate change to capitalism to war. We’re living through a climate crisis, I don’t see why very senior people in politics like him shouldn’t be threatened with prosecution
I love the “people like him” accusation, without any specifics.
I agree that Robinson is a bit greasy but threatening retribution once a revolution happens has echoes of “Come the revolution, you’ll be first against the wall”. Threats in general cheapen our political discourse.
Tbf I’m not sure Robinson is guilty of “treason” either, I just want to say I don’t think it should be so far-fetched for people who have a lot of influence to be prosecuted for their actions later if they’ve crossed a threshold. Tony Blair taking us to war, Rishi Sunak approving more oil extraction etc in the middle of a climate crisis - absolutely I want to see these people prosecuted.
Nick Robinson cheapens our political discourse
He’s a journalist.
Yes he’s a journalist, a journalist of politics. He has held and still holds very senior roles in political reporting, and with it significant influence on the political conversation of this country, much more than the average person. He’s not a politician but he is in politics.
OK can you expand on that a little? Are you saying that, as a matter of principle, journalists should be threatened with prosecution if they don’t agree with your politics?
Sorry I’m just not quite clear what the underlying principle is of what you’re saying.
I’m not and frankly I don’t think you’ve posted this in good faith
What’s with everyone saying, “you’re not posting in good faith” when they want to avoid explaining their comments?
Anyway, that’s cool, I just wanted to understand your reasoning a little more bit but if you don’t want to engage that’s also fine.
Have a good one 👍.