A Critique of the 2003 Kerferd Oration by John Harber Phillips
This lecture, delivered 21 years ago by John Phillips, former Chief Justice of Victoria, now deceased, argued that the evidence was strong that in 1880 there was a North Eastern Victorian Republican Movement, and it was led by Ned Kelly.
In 2003 there was widespread support for this view, but in the intervening years the claims on which Phillips based his opinion have been eroded to the point that his conclusion is now obsolete. Never-the-less, die-hard Kelly sympathisers and supporters continue to claim Ned Kelly had a plan for a Republic and continue to point to Phillips opinion as support for it.
In this Blog post I will point out what has changed since Phillips formed his opinion, and explain why his argument for a Republic Movement no longer holds water.
ONE
Phillips begins by saying that shortly after his execution a rumour went around that when captured, Ned Kelly had in his possession “a declaration of a Republic of North-Eastern Victoria.” Actually, the rumour going around was that when captured, Kelly had in his posession “a pocket book, containing a number of letters, implicating persons in good positions, and the name of one Member of Parliament is mentioned”. So, at the time, there was only a rumour, and it was about ‘letters’ – nobody mentioned a republic or a declaration until many decades later. As for the rumour about letters, no letters have ever surfaced so the rumour may well have been a fantasy.
Phillips belief that ‘shortly after his execution’ people were discussing rumours about a Republic is wrong.
TWO
The earliest mention of a Republic that Phillips said he knew of was “in a magazine, The Irish Times published in Dublin in the late 1920s” but exhaustive searches for it came up empty handed. Nobody has any idea what reference Phillips was referring to, but it clearly wasn’t from The Irish Times in the 1920’s.
What has been found instead is that no-one, not even Kelly gang relatives and descendants ever made references to a Kelly Republic anywhere until 1900, when an article appeared in The Bulletin, speculating that if the police train had been wrecked as Kelly intended, “nothing could have averted the railway catastrophe as a prelude to the Presidency of Edward Kelly, Esq., supported by nine men out of every ten in the disaffected district.” No source was provided for this claim which appears to have been made up by the unnamed writer. Certainly, Kelly never had the support of nine men out of ten.
Twenty-nine years later, Kelly sympathiser and journalist J.J.Kenneally published his landmark book “The Complete Inner History of the Kelly Gang.” Ned Kellys brother Jim declared that with Kenneallys book, Australians were now ‘in full possession of the truth’- but there was not even one word in it about a Republic. So, in 1929 neither Kenneally, who was very close to the Kellys, nor Ned Kellys own brother Jim, nor Ned Kellys cousin Tom – who was named by Kenneally as his main source – knew anything at all about a plan for a Republic. Clearly they were not the source for, and knew nothing about the 1900 article that had speculated on a plan for a Republic and for Ned Kelly to become its first president.
However, despite that, the Bulletins tease from 1900 was copied at random intervals by other newspapers and columns, and repeated with variations over the subsequent years, firstly in non-serious gossip and humour columns, and then from there it eventually found its way into semi-serious commentary in print and on Radio. Kelly apologists and Republic defenders think that each of these several citations are separate pieces of evidence for the Republic but they are not : they are recycled accounts that link back to that one piece of creative writing in 1900 that made a claim in jest that nobody in the wider Kelly clan circles had ever heard of. Never-the-less, from there, as Philips noted, it reached Max Browns 1948 landmark Kelly biography “Australian Son”. For reasons known only to Brown, he dismissed the ‘rumour’ about a packet of letters, and replaced it with a false claim, expressed not as a rumour but as a fact that when Kelly was captured a Declaration of the Republic was taken from his ‘pocket’. Not a single piece of evidence exists anywhere to support that claim: its false.
THREE
Phillips next discusses the enormous impetus given to the Republic claims by Ian Jones, who received what he must have regarded as a gold mine of information about the gangs’ plan for a Republic from Thomas Patrick Lloyd. Lloyds father, Tom Lloyd, was the close associate and confidante of the Kelly gang and cousin of Ned Kelly that Kenneally had relied on. Jones didn’t seem to notice that the information that the son claimed to be passing on from his father, was information his father didn’t appear to possess when he helped Kenneally write the history of the Kelly gang he claimed was ‘complete’.
Despite this red flag about Thomas Patrick Lloyd as a source, Jones eagerly incorporated all this information into a landmark address in 1967 when he presented “A New View of Ned Kelly” . This ‘new view’ placed Ned Kelly at the head of a secret army of disaffected selector sympathisers whose plan was to overthrow local government and declare the North east a Republic. The gradual transformation of an idea that began as a joke in 1900 into serious claims about history, took more than sixty years but it was now complete. Jones so effectively promoted this idea in his writing and in his landmark 1980 mini-series The Last Outlaw that even academics like Phillips and several others came to take seriously the idea that Kelly wasn’t a mere criminal but a political revolutionary, the head of a sympathiser army and a President-in-waiting.
Unfortunately for the true believers, in a quite remarkable but predictable admission many years later, Thomas Patrick Lloyd confessed to Dr Doug Morrissey that the information about a Republic that he gave to Jones was a fabrication. He was fed up with journalists distorting and misrepresenting the family oral histories of the outbreak and decided to tell Jones whatever it was he thought Jones wanted to hear. Morrissey explains this in detail over several pages in Ned Kelly A Lawless Life, the first book of his Kelly trilogy. This revelation, and huge correction to the record, was devastating to the Republic narrative: it exposed the whole thing as a hoax.
FOUR
Phillips discusses in detail the recollection made in 1969 by Melbourne journalist Leo Radic that 7 years earlier, in 1962, in the London Public records office, he had seen the ‘Declaration’ said by Max Brown to have been taken from Ned Kellys pocket. Phillips wrote “I think that it is both safe and reasonable to regard Len Radic’s account as hard evidence of a North-Eastern Republican movement”. This was because Phillips didn’t think a journo would get it wrong!
However, though several subsequent amateur and professional searches at the London PRO failed to find it, for many years Radics claim was taken very seriously, and there was an expectation that sooner or later this ‘holy grail’ of Kelly relics would be discovered. However, in 2013, Radic offered a reassessment of his claim to have seen the fabled ‘Declaration’ and announced he had got it wrong. The multiple searches for the Declaration failed because it never existed.
FIVE
Other supporting evidence that Phillips cited in making his case for the Republic, was offered without any critical analysis, but included the irrelevant fact that two academic historians, Prof John McQuilton and Prof John Molony had expressed their support for Jones ‘New View’! So what? As I keep repeating, the case for a Republic has to be made on its own merits, not on a headcount of who does and doesn’t support it.
Phillips makes reference to actual Republican movements that existed at the time in colonial Australia : but their existence isn’t evidence that Ned Kelly was also planning one. Again, the case for a Kelly Republic has to be made on its own merits. The records that prove other Republican movements existed provide nothing concrete to support of a claim about a Kelly Republic – in fact by referencing these other movements Phillips actually undermines one of his other arguments , the one about such movements needing to be secretive because treason was punishable by death. The examples he cites were not secretive and their supporters were never charged with any crime, let alone executed for treason, but to this day Kelly Republic supporters continue to claim the absence of evidence for a Kelly Republic is because it needed to be top secret to preserve the lives of its promotors. Thats nonsense.
Phillips also offered as support, references in the literature to parties of armed men being seen at Glenrowan on the night of the siege, and this related claim: “Witnesses gave accounts of him (Kelly) addressing a body of his supporters on a nearby hilltop. He ordered them to disperse. One witness thought they numbered up to 150 men, all armed.” This claim about meeting sympathisers on the hill was part of the tall tale that Thomas Lloyd invented for Ian Jones’ and importantly is disproved by Kellys own testimony: Kellys movements that night were tracked by Rawlins whose report shows that at the time Jones guessed Kelly was on the hillside dismissing a sympathiser army, he was actually lying in the undergrowth behind the Inn, watching Rawlins passing so close to him that Kelly said he could have reached out to touch him.
The reports of parties of armed sympathisers converging on the scene turn out to be grossly inflated and inaccurate. There was only ever one such claim, and it referred not to “parties” but to a single party of heavily armed men on horseback. When Jones mentioned it in A Short Life he wrote “The phantom army was beginning to emerge”. However, the original reports, when tracked down were about four men who were on foot, one of whom possibly carried a firearm, and who were definitely not sympathisers. So not ‘parties’ but ONE party, not on horseback but on foot and not heavily armed but ‘possibly’ carrying a gun.
Phillips also claimed as support the report of rockets being fired at Glenrowan, but we now know that much of that detail, such as who fired them and why was supplied to Ian Jones by Thomas Patrick Lloyd so can be dismissed. That leaves only the original claim by Const Arthur to have seen two rockets, one large and one small, for a reason and purpose that were unknown to him. It remains impossible to understand how the only person who ever reported seeing them was Arthur because the place from where he believed they had been launched was right in front of a large crowd of spectators and police. It remains possible that he saw something other than rockets, such as spark emissions from the train on standby at the very place he suggested was where the rockets had come from. We will never be sure, but even if it could be proved he saw actual rockets, Arthurs report provides nothing in the way of evidence in support of a Republic.
SIX
Phillips concludes with a lengthy discussion about the Land rights acts and a claim borrowed from Jones about social conditions in the north-east. Jones and Phillips contention was that social instability and selector dissatisfaction in late 1870 made the North East ‘ripe for Republican sentiment’. However, that view was challenged by an actual historian (Prof Weston Bate) when Jones described it that way at the Kelly symposium in 1967, and has been challenged since by Morrissey among others. In any case, even if social conditions were ‘ripe for Republic sentiment’ that doesn’t mean that Kelly was planning to establish one. That case has to be made on its own merits, with actual evidence showing that he was.
CONCLUSION
With the benefit of hindsight, knowing what we do about Thomas Patrick Lloyd and Len Radic in 2024, its easy to see how, through no fault of his own Phillips got it wrong in 2003 when he said in the Kerford Oration:
“Accordingly, I think that it is both safe and reasonable to regard Len Radic’s account as hard evidence of a North-Eastern Republican movement. This being so, it is proper to regard Thomas Patrick Lloyd’s reports as satisfactory supportive evidence. Together, this material clothes what had previously been a legend with the aura of reality.”
In fact, with the passage of time every single one of the pillars of Phillips mostly circumstantial argument about a Republic have fallen over. There is nothing left. The Republic is a Myth.
Download the Oration HERE: Kerferd – complete speech
REFERENCE : I relied heavily on Dr Stuart Dawsons brilliant monograph, downloadable from the top of the page “Ned Kelly and the Myth of the Republic of NE Victoria.”
Good post. Even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it amazes me how these author’s just ran with the ‘Republic’ idea for so many years ,without any kind of real proof. Obviously they just heard what they wanted (and needed) to hear, and that was the perfect excuse to try and justify the Glenrowan Siege. Tom Lloyd was believed simply because he was a Lloyd. It’s like they had reached the point of no return with the story, so had to keep pushing it. Plus, the whole republic idea is a pretty good yarn, but only if it was written in a fictional book, and not put out there as historical fact.
For some reason I can just picture Ian Jones, John Phillips, Leo Radic and Max Brown all sitting together at the Melbourne Club, glasses of Madeira in hand (just like Jones shows Capt. Standish in TLO) laughing out loud about how easily the plebs swallowed it all for so long, and continue to.
No doubt President Kelly would be in the background laughing harder than them all.
Thanks JT. It would be somewhat reassuring to believe the scenario you described of these Kelly apologists sitting in the Melbourne club laughing at how they had managed to trick everyone into believing the Republic nonsense….but more scary, and I think closer to the truth is the notion that they actually believed it themselves. Jones in particular was a very charming and very cleverly persuasive man who didnt just persuade the country that he was right, he persuaded himself.
Convincing analysis though I don’t know enough to form an opinion. Why don’t we hear more from descendants on the matter?
What more would you like to know John so you could form an opinion?
To me its very clear: the idea of a Kelly Republic is a myth whose origins can be quite clearly traced, not back to a historical reality but to an anonymous journalists idle musings in 1900.
In regard to descendants, given that Jim Kelly, cousin Tom and Ellen Kelly and her neighbour JJKenneally didnt have any knowledge of a Republic, its difficult to imagine how descendants of more recent vintage would have anything to contribute about the Republic.Its an idea that was invented by others which modern descendants may have accepted but in that regard they would be no more qualified to discuss it than anyone else learning about it in the second half of the twentieth century.
David, all is well. Michael O’connor has summed it up beautifully with his reply to Derek Ladlow. Have you heard of the Sutherland letter?
Yes the Sutherland letter has been around for a few years now. Are you familiar with it? Its a later written by a young man to his parents I think it was, reporting what he had read about the Siege and also that he had gone to the Station and saw Ned Kelly after he had been captured.
I see Stuart Rowsell is carrying on as usual confabulating and misinforming and muddying the waters with all sorts of absurd speculation., and denials of basic facts and evidence. The graphic he displayed of a book about Republicanism in the South Pacific says NOTHING about Ned Kelly. He mentions it to impress people but he is deceiving you into thinking it somehow supports his Kelly theories. Equally, he makes out that Bills book supports his theories but it doesnt. Bill makes a general case about social conditions and refers to other movements but states outright that there is no evidence for a republic movement led by Kelly and his sympathisers.
Try not to be overwhelmed and bamboozled by Rowsells flood of bullshit.
Hi JT and David, it’s funny to see Professor John Molony who also fulsomely promoted the Kelly Republic myth not invited to the Melbourne Club catchup! There’s a reason, of course: although Jones was the biggest and earliest promoter of that tale from 1967 onwards (in the Wangaratta Kelly seminar), the good Professor never acknowledged or footnoted Jones’s revolutionary seminar paper that was published in Man & Myth 1968. Sour grapes? Sour cream?
Anyway, the hypothetical table seats Jonesy the guru; and Judge Phillips whose acknowledgments at the start of his The Trial of Ned Kelly praise Jones as “the Kelly expert par excellence for his constant enthusiasm and encouragement”. The fruits of this enthusiasm totally screwed up Phillips’ analysis of Stringybark Creek. On p. 49 of his book Phillips maintains, clearly under the unstated sway of Jones 1968, that McIntyre’s statements vary significantly and that his first version was “much closer to the accounts Kelly gave to various witnesses”. Needless to say there is no referencing to any sources for any of Phillips’ creative writing on this score. It is utter nonsense as anyone can see for themselves if they take the trouble to read all of the evidence.
Jones has twisted the legal narrative just as he successfully did with Professor Waller’s paper in Man & Myth, when Jones first accused McIntyre of perjury. What a dumbass. So two chugging into the Madeira at this point.
Next staggers up Brown, the aging socialist, after a few at the public bar next door. The dill who added one plus one newspaper clippings to make five: a declaration of a republic found in Kelly’s pocket and secreted away by the police. The start of all this cockamamie nonsense. Take a seat Max and get a pot of port down ya.
Last to roll up is our astute journalist who, get this, never touched a drop on London 😂😂 but actually saw a printed copy of the actual declaration nine or so years previous to his hazy recollections. Make that a pint of Madeira, good waiter, with a double scotch chaser…
And now, like weedy Mick Jagger in Jones’s 1970 Ned Kelly flick, let’s have a toast, friends …. A toast, “to the Republic of Victoria”. Bottoms up, clowns.
HA! Terrific Stuart! They should make a new documentary about all this and call it ‘The Great Kelly Hoax’. David said it perfectly, that Ian Jones had ‘persuaded himself’. He had to, otherwise he would have been a laughing stock (just like he was with the ‘Gentleman Ned’ photo. Some expert), and all mainly thanks to a Lloyd. Lloyd’s fairy tale to Jones is the kind of ‘oral history’ the BBM plebs all lap up and think is so important, ESPECIALLY if it’s from a ‘descendant’. How hilarious that one of the very people they salivate over was just laughing in their faces.
The sight of John Jarratt writing the ‘Declaration’ in TLO still makes the bogan brigade tingle all over. They can never give up their fantasies about the Kelly’s. They would have nothing else to live for, meet up for and get drunk for. All that would be left for them is old dudes with old photos and book collections no one gives a crap about, and embarrassing dills like Jager showing off his latest number plates. I wonder if he drives around wearing his armour? I still can’t work out if he’s trying to impersonate Ned Kelly or Mick Jagger ? He looks much closer to the latter. The real Kelly would have happily knocked his bony block off in about two seconds flat.
Hi JT, the Last Outlaw is still fooling people with its subtitle that says that it’s based entirely on fact. So is astrology: there are stars and they can be said to resemble critters and they move around the sky in relation to the earth, so interpreting them as having certain predictive meanings is based entirely on astronomical fact… which has nothing to do with astrology.
I guess the key point I wanted to make is how much influence TLO and Short Life have had on the popular imagination of what Kelly was; really a glorified defence of Kenneally’s Inner History in many ways; much more fleshed out but still that persecuted hero theme – they done him wrong. It’s interesting how many people can’t see the direct interpretive overlaps between Kenneally, Jones, and so many later writers 🤷♂️
It could be fun to do a documentary debunking some of the Kelly myths, but I don’t think anyone would be impressed with my camera or editing skills. Maybe it’s for someone who’s a bit more tech savvy but also very sceptical about Kelly myths.
J.T
HAHA
Oh Steve, is that the best you can do? Embarrassed laughter? Its a huge tell when people like you and Rowsell and Barton can only manage ridicule and mockery as a means of defending your sad fantasy that Kelly had a plan to make the north east a Republic.
Youre the guy who gave a speech about the Republic that you claim debunked Dawson….now THERES something to laugh about…but feel free to give all of us here the benefit of your great wisdom and explain again how it was that you debunked Dawson…but I am not holding my breath.
But thanks for visiting. Its good that you’re still keeping up with the Blog, and learning stuff.
DAVID – 1 JAGER – 0
😀
I’d suggest that Kenneally and his confidants, even if they had heard of the short 1900 Bulletin oddities spoof article, thought it not worth even noting in passing. It is so obviously a lampoon, which is why it appeared in an oddities and jokes page; purely for amusement.
Kenneally was as much of a socialist as Max Brown, and if there had been anything political or politically left or republican about Kelly or his gang he would have shouted it out loud as further evidence of persecution by the authorities and their “loaded dice”.
It was left to Bill Beatty’s Believe it or Not brigade to recycle the Bulletin’s article in the 1940s with various elaborations before anyone had any thoughts of taking the joke seriously.
Absolute proof of the Kelly Republic found at last! To think it had been under our noses all this time! I’ll have to eat my cabbage tree hat!
Attachment
… Is that a cult leader …?
… Is that a cult leader …?
(sorry about that “anonymous” slip!)
Hi Tomas, yes, well spotted! He has many Kelly Republic enthusiasts in his audience eagerly watching him string together dozens of pieces of non-evidence and selective partial quotations into an appealing but totally fictitious theory of an imaginary Kelly Republic of North Eastern Victoria. The sceptics in the back row are falling about laughing as he gets increasingly hysterical when anyone questions his “facts”. He becomes loudly abusive if anyone mentions the free download book, “Ned Kelly and the Myth of a Republic of North Eastern Victoria”. He knows deep down that his fiction is over; but he can’t let go. He will probably end up in an asylum for the intellectually challenged, gibbering for the rest of his days about there being a hand written copy of a Declaration of a Kelly Republic hidden away somewhere with a garter and a handkerchief…
LOL Stuart! Exactly!
This is how I picture Rowsell after he posts one of his ‘brilliant’ theories.
Attachment
Hi JT, I’m not sure who that is TBH, but there are so many Kelly nuts out there it’s impossible to keep track. I wouldn’t waste my time anyway; the key arguments are still those of Jones and the three academics Molony, McQuilton and McMenomy, with later authors adding almost nothing to the Kelly republic myth. Even the last two shadow Jones closely but their references require examination when doing demolition work. On the contra side, Ian MacFarlane’s 2012 Kelly Gang Unmasked is what blew the whole longstanding Kelly myth out of the water and motivated me do do a laser focus solely on the republic tale. It’s amazing how many people haven’t read it but still feel free to comment from a position of total ignorance. 🤷♂️
Just to clarify, when I said it’s amazing how many people haven’t read it, I was referring to Ian MacFarlane’s book, not mine. Ian kicked down the door six years before I followed up with the coup de grace.
Cool, I do love a good sideshow freak ! He has a face MADE for chanting “One of us! One of us!” while allowing fleck of drool to grow perilously long all the while…. I spent over 30 years as a Kelly-tragic myself, before seriously pondering the affair of the burning of mortgages, and the whole belief system started to unravel from there. By the way, it’s a privilege to be speaking with you Dr, you might know me as that barely sane YouTuber “The Jaguar Knight,” here on this forum to keep cutting-edge well informed about developments in our national saga and its scholarship !
Hi Tomas, fantastic to hear from you! Although I had no idea who Jaguar Knight was, I was speaking with someone a couple of months ago, saying that neither of us could find any of those Jaguar Knight Kelly videos on YouTube anywhere as we thought they were well done and entertaining as well as some innovative and creative content. Are they still online somewhere? If there was any problem with YouTube there is another free video hosting site called Rumble that is equally accessible, that might be of interest?
It is indeed fantastic to be in this company, Dr Dawson, and talking with a genuine expert ! Thank you for making me feel welcome – I daresay the Kelly revisionist cause can accommodate both an academic and a court jester…! The late great Brad Williams showed me the conversation about one of my videos on this forum early in 2023, when I still had a flourishing channel, but YouTube destroyed it in an instant when I got three “strikes” (of both Copyright and Raw Tit types) and that means Game Over…. They didn’t say what the final two were, but invited me to APPEAL the strikes (somehow) anyway !! Yes, I look forward to setting up on Rumble and Gab soon, as well as a new YouTube channel (my current one is cursed for some strikes I got very early, the algorithm ruthlessly discriminates against me). I didn’t dare use the name “The Jaguar Knight” again (despite being an ACTUAL 500 year old Aztec warrior), I’m currently “Tomas Funes”. Here’s my latest Kelly related video – ” NED KELLY – The Fitzpatrick Incident, as shown in all the KELLY GANG movies !” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_xd1SceH98&t=3905s Note – at 54.35, there is a glitch that I can’t suppress though I’ve uploaded it FOUR times now, which causes it to lurch dizzyingly backwards and repeat the last several minutes…! The way to skip that irritation is to go directly from 54.35 to 59:38, where the narrative resumes. This had thousands of views on my old channel… dozens on the new one…. I’m glad to read that that you find my content “innovative and entertaining,” because entertainment is pretty much all you could get out of THIS video, it wouldn’t teach you anything or break new ground. My “Glenrowan Tactical Breakdown” series is up, unchanged, with those words in the titles – just today I’ve been working on the next instalment, about the overnight battle, and making much progress. It will benefit from my recent pilgrimage to Kelly Country – my first straying into Victoria in my life, and didn’t I have some nerve-wracking moments dealing with Kelly-tragics who appeared to be sussing out whether they’d heard me speaking before at some point… even stalking me in a cemetery after honouring the wrong graves…. I looked forward to telling Brad when I safely exfil-ed out of there, but of course, then I learned the awful news.
Hi Tomas, great that you’ll be putting the videos up on Rumble etc. Don’t worry about the Dr title, it’s only for academic articles, not for anything else. Half the people I know socially don’t even know I ever went to uni. Outside of this blog I don’t post anywhere and I don’t have Facebook as it’s sludgeville. I’ll get to the video link on the Cup Day holiday! And Kelly country visits are always good for a laugh 😂
Ooops, sorry Stuart, I missed that comment earlier. Farcebook is a complete sink, and the most jawdroppingly obvious security risk that has ever existed, I keep off it because I lose several friends by cancel culture every time I sign on…! I hope the Cup proved kind to you, keep well !
Hi Tomas, I got to your Fitzpatrick incident video of every film clip available with robust commentary and enjoyed it immensely. I hadn’t seen it before even though it said 4 months on the YT screen. It’s amazing what codswallop has been told about Fitzpatrick in film and video since the first 1906 one. It’s easy to see why some of his descendants are unimpressed. And the ham acting in some of the clips! Just amazing!
On Facebook, some of the universities use Facebook Workplace for their internal communication platform. Just imagine, every bit of taxpayer funded research corespondence passing through Facebook servers… I did argue with Monash years ago when I was still an adjunt there when they brought that system in, that I thought it was a security risk as facebook was already well known for data leaks as well as selling information, but the intellectual geniuses in charge of our institutions of higher learning (who are mostly commies anyway) weren’t interested enough to even reply. Such is life.
Many thanks, Stuart, I’m honoured !! I had videos in the same vein for Stringybark Creek and Glenrowan, on my old channel, where I got introduced to several of the luminaries of this here forum, in the rough and tumble comments war that I was unwittingly touching off, and the vids got just enough thousands of views for me to say that they would have achieved SOME penetration (not as much as Ned and Joe do in the 2003 movie though), and in time I’ll revamp those vids for re-release too (the one you saw was about 70% new material). And here’s one of those “we laugh because it’s way too TRUE” moments :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juQcZO_WnsI
Facebook CIA Project: The Onion News Network ONN
Hi Tomas, I’m looking forward to more revamped Kelly videos whenyou get around to it. I liked the Onion skit, but I’m more a Babylon Bee fan!
I’m definitely a Babylon Bee fan too !
Hi Tomas
Great to have you commenting on the Blog. I also regretted the loss of your Jaguar Knight videos from You Tube – they were such an antidote to the usual Kelly rubbish that up.
I’m interested to know more about why they were removed : was it whining and complaining from Kelly trolls? They love to mouth off about ‘hero or villain?’ but explode if someone. gives the wrong answer. They sabotaged several Kelly discussion boards that I developed almost a decade ago, but then I started this Blog, and it seems despite thier best efforts, its here to stay!
BTW what happened to the lovely videos of Sgt Cody or whoever he was, an old guy who posted sane Kelly commentary with his horse?
Hi David, and many thanks for making me welcome here !!
I’m not sure whether I knew this “Sgt Cody,” did you and I cross paths in his comments section at some point…?
Well YouTube has a three strikes at one time = sudden extinction forever, policy, and when two strikes piled on while I wasn’t checking it all day, YouTube made NO effort to advise me of WHAT the strikes were about, or even which of over 150 videos were involved… yet they gave me the chance for a once-only appeal, maximum about 200 words, totally blind as to what issues I’d be addressing!! Fairness is a foreign country to them.
By the way, I’m the only guy on YouTube who has The Cameron Letter. Plenty of Jerilderie Letters out there, but no Cameron Letter until this year! Never mind, I’m giving up my current channel as shadow-banned, and starting up a new one which won’t feature content vulnerable to strikes, and I’ll get on Rumble and Gab where freedom of speech is still respected.