Should we shift to electric in all motor sports? Are we too sensitive these days? 

These are the two big questions your co-hosts Stuart ‘The Wildman’ Mabbutt and William Mankelow discuss in today’s episode of The People’s Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast. 

On this podcast we never see the questions before we press record. They are presented to us on the spot, often challenging and always unexpected. We like to give you an ad free experience. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers.

Our first of two listener questions for today’s episode comes from Elodie, Brittany, France - “Do you think that all forms of current motor racing, including motorcycle racing, develop into and be replaced by electric versions in the pursuit of environmental sustainability?”

Stuart states he has no objection to electric racing and sees it as an interesting experiment, noting that Formula One already uses hybrids. He argues though, that introducing electric or hybrid alternatives would likely draw a different, and maybe even new audience, with only some current fans switching over, as they can feel something is being lost from their experience, and not being replaced or enhanced within the electric versions.

William questions whether using finite resources to power motorsport is justified at all, noting that fuels like methanol likely still come from oil.

Stuart feels that with few young fans being attracted to some of these current sporting models anyway, they must become more interactive and engaging too. Removing the visceral experience as you are with electric versions, makes it even less attractive to some people, so electrification is not enough on its own.

The second listener question comes from Paul, Queensland, Australia - “Is it wrong for comedians to laugh and ridicule the disabled, vegans and environmentalists? Are we too sensitive these days? Is something not funny because we don’t like the person telling it or is the essence funny whatever?”

William states that people can be overly sensitive, treating feeling offended as more significant than it actually is. He observes that if someone is offended, then they are simply experiencing that feeling, nothing more.

Stuart questions whether laughing or using humour is inherently wrong, noting that humour can highlight the absurdity of situations rather than ridicule people. He illustrates this with a café incident where he joked about not being able to “run away” in his wheelchair, showing that humor can simply acknowledge reality, without mocking anyone.

William explains that he challenges his own bias by listening to favourite musicians as if they are new to him and approaching unfamiliar musicians as if he already knows their work. He applies the same mindset to comedians he dislikes, giving them fair attention to see whether it is the material or his own bias shaping his reaction.

During this conversation, William mentions a stand up routine by British comedian Peter Kay talking about the British TV series Crimewatch, here a link to that video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPsu-PCubvs

What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠[email protected]

This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. 

Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends podfollow.com/ThePeoplesCountrysideEnvironmentalDebatePodcast , support our work through Patreon patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside

Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities

We sit here bravely tackling listener questions hurled at us from every corner of the globe — completely unprepared and slightly afraid. We don’t see them until we hit record, which explains a lot. As for Grzegorz’s name, William took one look and noped out like a man dodging a spelling bee in Polish. He respects names too much to turn them into interpretive dance.

Paul, from Queensland, Australia places the first question for discussion today- “Nothing is morally right or morally wrong. Right, wrong and morality don’t even exist in some people's eyes. The world is not just meaningless, but also absurd. What do you think?”

William kicks things off by declaring humans are the cosmic equivalent of a plot twist no one saw coming — absurd creatures who somehow made it this far despite centuries of questionable decisions and poor impulse control. 

Stuart zooms out and says, “Nope, it’s all absurd,” pointing to algae that spent two billion years evolving and making oxygen like the world’s slowest intern. William agrees, but finds beauty in the chaos — Earth’s lucky lottery of moon tilts, Jupiter’s debris vacuuming, and rotational chill make life both ridiculous and miraculous. 

Stuart questions morality itself, wondering if it’s just a group project we all pretend to understand. 

William, meanwhile, marvels at humanity’s obsession with upgrades, even though we’re all headed for the same existential exit — suggesting we cherish the people who make the absurdity worthwhile.

Grzegorz, from Opole, Poland sets the next question- “Is Reform UK really a political party outside of the UK establishment?”

William shuts it down with a firm “No. End of episode,” like a man refusing to debate whether water is wet. 

Stuart’s intrigued that the question came from someone outside the UK — or maybe just someone pretending to be exotic while living in Croydon. He agrees: Reform UK isn’t some rebellious outsider, no matter how many pub speeches say otherwise. 

William adds, noting Farage is basically the Hogwarts head boy of the establishment — all robes, no magic. He vents that Farage is a walking cartoon of privilege, somewhere between a monocle and a Boris Johnson impersonator. Starmer, he concedes, has made some eyebrow-raising moves, but at least he doesn’t look like he was grown in a Westminster petri dish.

What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠[email protected]

Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities

We like to give you an ad free experience. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers.

This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. 
Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends podfollow.com/ThePeoplesCountrysideEnvironmentalDebatePodcast , support our work through Patreon patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside

Welcome back to another episode of Greenwashed & Unhinged — the podcast where we pretend to care about the planet while blindly stumbling through your questions like eco-conscious toddlers in a philosophy seminar.

Before we dive in, a heartfelt shoutout to our beloved listener Hannen Beith. Hannen, darling, pull your finger out and send us a question. We know you’re lurking. Contribute or be composted.

Elodie, from Brittany, France sets the first question today - “Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?”

Stuart muses that human power corrupts faster than compost rots in July—unless wielded by a unicorn of selflessness. He compares it to gravity: powerful, universal, and blissfully unaware of politics. 

William argues corruption is a human invention, like spreadsheets or reality TV. Together, they liken it all to gardening: no plant is evil unless it takes over. So, when in charge, don’t believe your own hype—listen twice as much as you talk. Nature does, and it hasn’t tried to run for office.

Debs, from Didcot, Oxfordshire, England set the second of today's questions -  “Someone from Thames Water, when talking about the potential new Oxfordshire reservoir, said, “we need to focus on identifying and moving the wildlife out of the way”, that shows a distinct lack of understanding of mitigating ones environmental impact”.

Stuart fondly recalls the time builders lovingly flattened an ancient wildflower meadow for six months, then heroically promised to fix it with a sprinkle of generic grass seed — because clearly, green equals biodiversity. He reminds us that ecosystems aren’t IKEA furniture: you can’t just relocate wildlife and expect it to “assemble itself.” 

William adds that animals aren’t invading cities — we built over their homes and now call them “urban” like it’s a lifestyle choice. 

Stuart, ever the diplomat, declares his tulip rights while denying nature any. 

William defends the underdogs — foxes, pigeons, crows — nature’s misunderstood freeloaders. Moral of the story? Think long-term. Or at least longer than six months.

What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠[email protected]

Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities

We like to give you an ad free experience. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers.

This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. 

Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends podfollow.com/ThePeoplesCountrysideEnvironmentalDebatePodcast , support our work through Patreon patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside

If you want the go to experts, that's not us, you've come to the wrong podcast. This is however the podcast where co-hosts Stuart ‘The Wildman’ Mabbutt and William Mankelow, discuss questions sent in by you the listeners.

The first of the two listener questions for today’s episode comes in the form of this epic enquiry from Bronwen, in Atlanta, Georgia, USA - “Does hardship make our species stronger?”

William tentatively starts out by saying that hardship does make our species stronger.

Stuart feels it does too, but it's not necessarily what makes us stronger. Instead, it’s the whole package of experience that helps us along.

Stuart explains that hardship depends on mindset; for him, it’s simply something to endure, and move through, rather than dwell on as good or bad.

William notes that people often dwell too much on such things; he feels tired after two days of physical work, but views it not as a hardship, rather as a natural consequence of effort.

Off the back of Bronwen’s question Stuart comes up with the following action:  drill down into the words you use in your daily vocabulary.

William, not wanting to feel left out, comes up with this action: He reflects on how people in the UK often label weather as good or bad, though he believes it is simply a matter of mindset. He tries to view weather neutrally, whether wet, hot, or dry, and focuses instead on preparing for it. He suggests this perspective can be applied more broadly to life.

The second question for this episode, which really got Stuart and William thinking, comes from Paul, in Queensland, Australia - “Is it more important to help yourself, help your family, help your society, or help the world?”

Stuart emphasizes that change begins with one's self; one cannot change anything else without first changing themselves. He likens the self to an umbrella, with various aspects extending in different directions, none more important than the others.

William agrees with the umbrella metaphor, noting that if you can manage yourself, you can help others. He also believes that small, thoughtful actions in everyday life can make a significant difference.

What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠[email protected]

We like to give you an ad free experience. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers.

This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. 

Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends podfollow.com/ThePeoplesCountrysideEnvironmentalDebatePodcast , support our work through Patreon patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside

Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities

This is the podcast where  listeners send questions for us to conversate around, and although not always to do with the environment, we always try to bring an action back to the that in some way.  We're not the go-to experts. We're the go-to guys who are willing to explore things cold, and change our minds as we go through.

The first listener question comes from Unity, in Paddock Wood, Kent, England - “Do you guys feel overwhelmed by the mass migration into and across Europe? Many react when cultures collide in these situations. We don’t think about the countries these migrants are leaving behind, as often it can be the brightest and the best that are leaving out of desperation, heading for beacons of better lives. Though there may also be darker reasons too. Those left behind can include the weak, who have no support. We need to support these countries as they rebuild and manage the drivers that lead to others leaving. This is just the start of modern mass migration”.

William sees it as Unity states in her question, that it is only the start of a mass migration.

Stuart reflects on how migration often involves the most capable individuals, leaving their countries out of desperation, sometimes leaving behind those with fewer resources or who need support.

William observes that society is increasingly building metaphorical walls between cultures, fostering unnecessary division and misunderstanding.

Stuart feels we are millennia away from being anything but the tribal animal we are.

William’s environmental action: he encourages taking practical, manageable steps toward addressing the climate crisis. When feeling overwhelmed by its scale, he believes it’s important to break the challenge into smaller, achievable actions.

Stuart highlights the importance of empathy ,and self-awareness in everyday interactions. He suggests that when someone feels irritated by another person—say, on a bus—it’s worth remembering that the other person is human too and not necessarily a total c***!

The second question comes from Estefania, in Jalisco, Mexico - “Does talking about death, speak it into existence? Is that why some cultures don’t discuss it?”

Stuart believes that talking about death doesn’t bring it into existence—it’s a reality that already exists.

William argues that avoiding talk of death stems from superstition and taboo rather than reason. He compares it to the idea of “tempting fate” by mentioning the weather—pointing out that words don’t influence these events in his opinion. 

Stuart feels that many cultures have just got into the habit of not talking about death, and this has turned into a taboo.

William believes it’s important to talk openly about death from an early age. He feels that understanding death as a natural part of life helps people accept it, regardless of their personal beliefs.

William’s action is to remember that everything eventually ends. He sees this not as morbid, but as a reminder to appreciate the present.

Stuart’s action: to  filter out the stuff that doesn't matter and you'll begin to realize very little does matter. It's all a distraction.

What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠[email protected]

This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. 

Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends podfollow.com/ThePeoplesCountrysideEnvironmentalDebatePodcast , support our work through Patreon patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities

An episode where there's no one in the Listeners Chair as Alex has returned to university to study Microsoft Paint so the remaining panel records blind. Listeners submit questions in advance; the hosts open them only when the red light goes on, responding cold and unrehearsed. The podcast welcomes teasing and detours, but the conversation always returns to the core question. This episode is candid, focused, and unsparing — real-time thinking, no script.

Tracey, from Oxford, England sets William and Stuart the first question to explore - “Badgers are undermining my house but I can’t relocate them. They should be in the countryside, not urban areas”.

William argues badgers don’t distinguish countryside from towns; animals simply follow suitable habitats. Stuart recounts badgers collapsing a road and the Highways Agency relocating them, and he sympathizes with homeowners denied the same protection. 

Both call for consistent rules and balanced action: protect property foundations, manage habitat to reduce encroachment, and minimise harm to badgers while recognising their ecological role.

Sally, from Mildura, Australia offers up the next question - “Knowledge drives everything, some say. How do we live well without making the planet unlivable for ourselves then?”

Stuart and William debate humanity’s role in the world: Stuart argues knowledge isn’t the sole driver of events and that unseen forces shape the universe, while William warns that human comforts often come at the expense of other species as people reshape the planet for their own benefit. 

They challenge the idea that humans are simply parasites, presenting instead a nuanced view of our adaptability and resilience. Both contend that “living well” can mean comfort or ecological responsibility and that most choices sit in shades of gray. William closes with a practical action: listen twice as much as you speak to learn from diverse perspectives and find more balanced solutions.

What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠[email protected]

We like to give you an ad free experience. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers.

This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. 

Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends podfollow.com/ThePeoplesCountrysideEnvironmentalDebatePodcast , support our work through Patreon patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside

Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities

Today’s episode marks a special moment as we welcome back Alex Kauffmann to the Listeners Chair for one final time before he returns to university. Before signing off, he expressed his gratitude for being part of the podcast and acknowledged that it may be a few months before he returns.

This episode also highlights an important aspect of podcasting: listener interaction. Each episode features two questions submitted by our audience. These questions vary in frequency—some listeners become regular contributors, while others send in a single question and are never heard from again. This dynamic creates a rich tapestry of engagement, showcasing the diverse interests and curiosity of our audience.

Sally, from Mildura, Australia sets the first question for us today  - “I feel where social media has gone wrong, is we use it as a backdrop to our lives, giving others the perception that our lives have meaning. For example, people are incessantly posting about their holidays, and their food. The posts don’t add value to the observer, they just seem designed to impress others how well travelled and cultured we are, and giving others an insight into our digestive process. I’m not sure where it went wrong, but the value is in living and not living to prove the value of our life through social media.”

Social media often promotes curated highlights over authentic experiences. William advocates purposeful posting to inspire or inform, while Alex critiques its superficiality, viewing it as attention-seeking and disconnected from real life. 

Stuart uses social media strategically to communicate impact, urging reflection over validation. Both Alex and Stuart call for mindful engagement—living in the moment and posting with clear intent, especially in environmental contexts.

Aine, Dublin, Republic of Ireland - “Man is having as big an impact if not a bigger one as the meteor that killed the non-avian dinosaurs. Can we fathom the size of that problem?”

Stuart highlights Aine’s insight that only non-avian dinosaurs went extinct. Alex views humanity’s resilience as part of ongoing evolution, suggesting extinction is less probable than other natural threats. 

The group explores the limits of human perception, noting difficulty in grasping large-scale issues like climate change or asteroid impacts. William questions whether full comprehension is necessary, proposing local awareness as a practical alternative. 

Stuart further challenges temporal understanding, suggesting time may be a human construct without fixed boundaries.

What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠[email protected]

We like to give you an ad free experience. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers.

This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. 

Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends podfollow.com/ThePeoplesCountrysideEnvironmentalDebatePodcast , support our work through Patreon patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities

It’s our 600th episode! I know what you’re thinking, they don’t sound jaded and tired, which could easily be the case, after so many episodes. That’s because with every episode, the tone is set by you dear listeners, who continue to send in questions for us to discuss. We've only got nine questions lined up at present, so get 'em in now and you'll be answered quite quickly, maybe even in time for Christmas, wouldn’t that be the best present you’ve ever received!?

Alex Kauffmann is back in the listener's chair for his penultimate episode before he buggers off back to college. Has he been  with us too long, or not long enough maybe? Only you can decide.

Today’s first question comes from Estefania, Jalisco, Mexico - “We’re told the new green economy will save us, yet that's still utilising the same system that's destroying us. Green tech, if done well and for the right reasons is the right thing to do, but what we’re not told is there's one thing we can all do, that has a positive impact on all areas of climate change, that much green tech doesn't. Eat less meat and dairy”

William jumps straight in: he says that one of the biggest contributors to climate change is meat, specifically beef.  So if you could eat less meat, and particularly beef, it would have a better impact, he thinks, than any new technology.

Alex explains that while challenges are inevitable, Green Tech is not destined to replicate unsustainable systems. He envisions it developing into an ecosystem, that connects with society, much like nature does, an aspiration that takes time but follows the pattern of past innovations.

Stuart recalls warning that investing in green inventions often meant funding big oil companies, which buy up patents, only to shelve them. He argues that these corporations suppress alternatives to maintain dependence on oil, later reintroducing the innovations as if they were entirely new.

And the second question for today’s charade comes from Vinroy, Linstead, Jamaica - It is a long question, and we only get 4,000 characters to play with, you can find Vinroy’s bumper of a question right here: Vinroy’s question

Alex notes that while some societies adapt to governmental and economic structures, extreme wealth concentration remains a persistent issue. He adds that cultural differences make universal solutions difficult to implement.

William highlights the organization Led by Donkeys, which exposes how the very wealthy can easily obtain foreign citizenship to offshore money and avoid taxes. He emphasizes that some people will always prioritize their own financial interests above all else. There are ways that people can actually get around it by going to organizations like this where they can actually offshore their money. 

Stuart reflects that while the wealthy and the poor often operate on different value systems, true richness isn’t financial. He suggests that instead of chasing flashy wealth, society could adopt a different set of values that doesn’t revolve around material accumulation.

What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠[email protected]

We like to give you an ad free experience. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers.

This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. 

Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends podfollow.com/ThePeoplesCountrysideEnvironmentalDebatePodcast , support our work through Patreon patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities

This is the People's Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast. Every episode we conversate around two listener questions, and where possible, spin the conversation around to the environment in some way, regardless of the topic covered. 

In today’s episode we begin with an educational question from Unity in Paddock Wood, Kent, England - “What do you think about bringing climate change into the mainstream UK curriculum in schools? 10 years ago children's favourite word was minion, now it's climate change. Do we risk scaring children by catastrophizing? Is it better to teach older school children solutions and tools? Are we making the younger ones anxious? Do we risk promoting political activism if we educate about climate change in the wrong way? If we teach that we have no agency for change we risk just making children grow up angry, instead of driving actual change”.

Alex feels that the subject of climate change really would be best added to the subject of geography. He recalls being taught about earthquakes, pollution, and overpopulation, so there’s already catastrophising in schools. He recalls his time in secondary school, and concludes that climate change really should be there as a subject.

William brings this whole conversation around to whether this is once again an avoidance of our own mortality issue? That the subject of death around children can be an even more taboo subject than sex for example.  

Stuart recalls a conversation with a teacher after listening to a past episode  about climate change in the curriculum.  And they were absolutely convinced that climate change had infiltrated every single lesson, but it was so subtle that nobody noticed it.

We then move onto this taxing question from Brice in Crieff, Scotland - “Should we be taxing on wealth and assets and not just income? The super rich are buying up everything and enslaving people to be in debt to them. Can we do anything until wealth is more fairly distributed, like after the second world war in the UK?”

Alex thinks that  we should tax the rich which he feels everyone can agree with, but the way our societies are run, with corrupt governments, they're money hungry and therefore the rich live in the best conditions because of that. So there's not really much we can do.  Who is going to tax the rich? The government, who are corrupt?

Stuart raises the point that he doesn’t necessarily think the super rich are intentionally enslaving us, but the by-product of process does. 

William brings up the idea of a universal income, where everyone can afford  the basics in their life, food, shelter etc. He goes onto say that he feels that is maybe idealistic, and that we humans are greedy buggers, and we don’t want anyone to have a slice of our pie.

Stuart comes up with an environmental action: We need to be more realistic with environmentalism and not think about utopian ideals. We need balance and measure.

William’s action with an environmental twist: He encourages you to  get off that aspiration train, and that in itself will definitely have a positive impact on the environment.

Alex’s environmental action:  We always talk about the tool and the master quite a lot. Money is a tool, not a master. It doesn't shape your life. It's what you use to live. It's not everything in life. So just think of it that way. It's a tool so use it as one.

What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Send us an email ⁠[email protected]

Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: Petition Link

This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. 

Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends Podfollow Link , support our work through Patreon Patreon Link. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: Linktree Link

Alex is back in the listeners chair again today. You send in the questions, we tackle them live—always with an environmental twist and no peeking beforehand.

Jess, from  Bishop’s Tatchbrook, Warwickshire, England sets the initial question - “I’ve been thinking about the police Stop and Search tactics in the UK. Should we keep it? Done for the right reasons, with truthful explanations, is it wrong? It's about how it's done I think, without aggression, reasonably and respectfully. Done well it lasts seconds, done badly it progresses and escalates”.

Alex hasn’t had much direct experience with stop and search but has heard mixed views. 

William sees outcomes as shaped by the officer’s mindset, while Stuart argues stereotyping is inevitable—but misuse is harmful. 

Stuart’s been stopped often and feels both sides share responsibility. 

William stresses the need for solid reasoning, though Stuart defends instinct. 

They discuss vague intel, lost police experience, and knowing your rights. 

Stuart calls for balance; William urges activists to check their egos to avoid pointless conflict.

Vinroy, in Linstead, Jamaica sent us the next question - “Not been well recently so I have been thinking about some big issues. The world around us, including buildings and the sea, is it dominated by objects or processes?”

William sees our world as shaped by habitual processes—things built, then replaced. 

Alex adds that automation plays a growing role. 

Stuart argues nearly everything is a process, not an object: the sea, buildings, even plastic all undergo constant change and decay. He struggles to see anything as static. William agrees, linking deterioration to environmental forces. 

Alex counters that objects exist as matter, while life itself is a process. The conversation dips into philosophy. 

William’s action: don’t over define everything. Stuart’s: take time to reflect—or not. Alex’s: contemplate life’s full arc and step back from reality.

What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? 

Let us know by sending an email to ⁠[email protected]

Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities

We like to give you an ad free experience. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers.

This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. 
Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends podfollow.com/ThePeoplesCountrysideEnvironmentalDebatePodcast , support our work through Patreon patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside