Summary: <br> Inspector Peter Woods is an inspector at the Dublin Roads Policing Division of An Garda Síochana and <a href="https://twitter.com/AccessForAll7" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener external" data-wpel-link="external">Seán O’Kelly</a> is the cofounder of Access for All Ireland.<br> <br> <br> <br> <a href="https://blog.hereshow.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sean-OKelly-scaled.jpg" data-wpel-link="internal"></a><br> <br> <br> <br> *****<br> <br> <br> <br> In the last podcast I talked to Professor Norman Fenton the professor of Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London; he takes a position that could fairly be described as opposed to Covid vaccines, Covid lockdowns, and pretty much everything else he calls the ‘official narrative’ to do with the Sars Cov 19.<br> <br> <br> <br> We had a lot of feedback on that podcast, to say the least. Some of that feedback was around my interviewing style, people complained that I didn’t allow Professor Fenton to speak enough, that I interrupted him too much.<br> <br> <br> <br> There are a couple of things to say about that. Firstly, it’s certainly true that I interrupted him more than I usually do in interviews with other guests. Secondly, despite that there were five occasions in the podcast where Professor Fenton spoke for between one and a half and two minutes, completely uninterrupted. Given that a typical Morning Ireland interview might be three to four minutes in total, questions and answers together, I think that indicates he had ample opportunity to get his points across.<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> But the most important thing to say is that, having listened back again since we put the podcast out, I think I was completely justified in interrupting when I did. In fact, not only do I think was I justified, I would say that if I hadn’t interrupted, and interrupted straight away, I would have been clearly in the wrong.<br> <br> <br> <br> The reason I say that is because I interrupted when the guest said things that were straight-up false. I don’t mean here something that I disagreed with, I don’t mean a flawed analysis that I might debate, I mean a plain-and-simple, externally verifiable, real-world fact. For example, Professor Fenton said in the interview that the CDC, that’s the Centres for Disease Control had announced that Covid most likely originated in a laboratory in Wuhan.<br> <br> <br> <br> That’s plain nonsense. They have said nothing of the sort, although that claim is made all over antivax social media. I immediately cut in and challenged him, and after some back-and-forth, he acknowledged that it was untrue. Listeners, you might disagree, but I think that was the right thing to do. There is a trope out there that goes ‘interviewers shouldn’t interrupt’, but I disagree. Otherwise, you end up with a party-political broadcast.<br> <br> <br> <br> As I said, I had quite a bit of correspondence, but one listener in particular went to a lot of trouble, firstly to write a very detailed email, but also to courteous and respectful, and engage with the issues rather than insulting people; that’s something that’s often missing in the debate so I really appreciated that.<br> <br> <br> <br> I can’t deal with all the points he raised, but I think that some of them are really important. One thing he said was<br> <br> <br> <br> What if there is no conspiracy? What if this is simply group-think which has led to a mass vaccination program?<br> <br> <br> <br> That’s a really interesting point. The authorities around the world are being forced to make decisions, very consequential decisions, at great speed. The idea that all these governments are part of a global conspiracy just doesn’t pass the smell test. In some cases, these are governments that can’t manage the most basic forms of cooperation, such as Britain and France, they are totally unable to solve the problem of migrants crossing the channel,
