Crash Bang Wallace
Libertarian political blog from Mark Wallace; political opinion, breaking news and exclusivesRichard Dawkins, the Pope of preachy atheism
Posted on February 14, 2012With today’s almighty row about secularism, atheism and religion, it seems like an opportune time to repost this article I wrote on why Richard Dawkins does atheism a gross dis-service by acting like a religious zealot.
Dawkins was on the Today Programme this morning, debating with Occupy-luvvy and former Chancellor of St Paul’s. With two of my least favourite public figures fighting against each other, it was a bit like the Iran/Iraq War, in that you rather wish they could both lose, but in the end it was wonderful to hear Fraser expose the absurdity of Dawkins’ illogical approach to attacking religious people. Listen here.
The curse of the Miliband Mix-up, episode 329
Posted on February 13, 2012This blog has long followed the Great Mili Mix-up, the tendency of even the most accomplished commentators to mix up David and Ed Miliband, almost as if the universe itself is trying to set right the error made when the wrong brother was elected Labour leader. So far it’s struck the BBC website, the Today Programme, the Telegraph, the Mirror and even Google Image Search.
The latest in this longstanding tradition is City AM, who illustrate the findings of today’s Voice of the City poll with the wrong Miliband:
The poll finding illustrated with David’s photo reads “69% Disapprove of Ed Miliband’s performance during the NHS reform debate”.
It’s hardly City AM’s fault that the Opposition Leader is apparently one of Britain’s most forgettable men – or were the picture desk just trying to imply a solution to the problem?
The Ed/David Media Mili-Mix-Up Part III
Posted on July 18, 2011Despite the big impact he’s generally recognised to have made on the hacking issue over the last fortnight, it seems Ed Miliband is still having some serious recognition issues even among the political media. After the Today Programme and the internet itself mixed him up with his brother David, and the Telegraph did the same, the effect is spreading.
Guido picked up on the Daily Mirror’s Mili-mixup:
Now the BBC website has managed to follow suit in their live coverage of PMQs:
This is quite funny, but it leaves Labour with a serious question: if even now, at the height of his performance, journalists mix up Ed Miliband with David Miliband what hope is there that the public know who he is?
Ed Miliband trapped in a Final Destination film
Posted on July 01, 2011In the Final Destination films, whenever someone cheats death the universe immediately starts trying to correct their lucky escape by killing them off. It know seems increasingly likely that this is happening to Ed Miliband – fate clearly never meant him to become Labour leader, he beat David by accident and now the universe is trying to set its mistake right.
A few weeks ago the Today Programme mixed the two up, and I noted that no less an authority than the internet has no idea who Ed is. Yesterday, the Independent revealed that millions of voters shown a photo of Ed would identify it as David Miliband.
Now even the Telegraph has started doing it, reporting in its coverage of the Inverclyde by-election that:
The Labour leader, David Miliband echoed Mr McKenzie’s sentiments and went further saying that the Labour win showed how disillusioned the public were about the coalition government’s handling of the economy.
How long can it be before the forces of fate and nature set right this mistake and put David Miliband in charge? When will Ed reach his Final Destination?
Ed who?
Posted on May 04, 2011John Humphrys must be a bit embarrassed by his Mili-mix-up on the Today programme this morning, ending his interview with the Labour leader by calling him “David Miliband”. But Humph shouldn’t be too worried – he was only channeling the general opinion that David is better than Ed Miliband.
For some galling proof, if you Google “miliband”, you get David first:
Even more galling for Ed must be the results if you do the same thing on Google Images:
Ed Miliband? Who?
How did John Humphrys get a free ad in The Archers?
Posted on December 28, 2010Ok, I’m coming out – I’m a fan of The Archers. Yes, the hurly burly of local scandal in rural Borsetshire conunes my Sunday mornings on a regular basis. To be honest, getting that off my chest makes me feel a while lot better.
One of the reasons I like it is that it’s a corner of the BBC which never makes me angry – unlike, say, Question Time which I’ve had to stop watching for the safety of my television screen.
But now it seems even The Archers is not a neutral zone. Last night’s episode had the characters discussing a local society dinner – which was a cue for a massive plug for John Humphrys’ lucrative after-dinner speaking service.
“Ooh, he’ll have a lot of interesting things to say,” one of them even waxed.
Isn’t against the BBC rules to advertise products or services? Or does that not count when giving a free editorial plug to one of their own staff?
The Giggle Loop and Jeremy…erm…Hunt
Posted on December 06, 2010Laughing on the radio is like laughing in church – you know you shouldn’t give in to the giggles, but that only makes it worse. Jim Naughtie had a brilliant one this morning, inadvertently turning Jeremy Hunt’s surname into a bad, bad word that makes David Cameron’s Twitter comment pale by comparison:
Perhaps the best thing about it was Naughtie’s desperate attempts to resist the giggles after dropping his bomb, before claiming it was a “coughing fit. Fans of the BBC’s old sitcom Coupling will know that this is known as the Giggle Loop.
My favourite attack of the Radio 4 Giggle Loop was suffered by Charlotte Green, when the bizarre sound of the oldest recording of a human voice clashed with a very sombre obituary:
Britain’s perverse idea of fairness
Posted on October 15, 2010The Today Programme have been doing a series this week on what fairness really means in modern Britain. (As part of which, I’m smugly happy to say, they read out my definition of fairness on air).
Yesterday, John Humphries explored what sense migrants have of the concept of British fairness by interviewing people at a citizenship ceremony. He got some pretty inspiring answers.
They like the fact that in Britain hard work is rewarded. Dedication and ability is a genuine way to the top. Freedom undetr the law is respected.
It’s great that people who hold these ideals dear still want to become Brits.
Sadly, those ideas of Britain are becoming less and less true – and I suspect they are more common amongst outsiders than many British people.
Tellingly, Humphries found only one person at the ceremony who thought British fairness was typified by the fact that you can get benefits without “putting anything in”. Unfortunately for the nation, it was the official chairing the meeting and handing out the citizenship certificates.
Welcome to Britain – please hang up your ambition as you enter, you won’t be needing it.
The hidden policing message: are PCSOs for the high jump?
Posted on September 23, 2010Sir Dennis O’Connor, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, has been getting a lot of media attention today for his broadside against the failings of modern policing. The main focus has been on his call for the police to “reclaim the streets” from yobs and to take low-level continuous offending more seriously.
It turns out – surprise, surprise – that we need police on the streets arresting criminals, backed up by courts that actually hand out tough punishments. That’s a view you could hear in any pub in the land, but is all too rarely espoused by anyone with any power.
What everyone seems to have missed so far, though, is his thinly veiled attack on PCSOs.
In his interview on the Today Programme this morning he emphasised a key theme – that to beat crime and take back the streets “it’s not just about [police] presence, it’s the presence of control”.
In the world of policing theory and policy, this is a direct attack on the thinking that lay behind the creation of PCSOs. Full police officers – the argument went – with a warrant card, training and full pension, are too expensive. Supposedly the job could be done just as well by creating a job that didn’t hold the same powers or cost as much but would be a visible presence. In short, the idea behind PCSOs was explicitly that presence alone was the most important thing.
It’s pretty clear now that that was a mistake. It is the warrant card in the officer’s pocket that actually arrests criminals, not the dayglo jacket – and PCSOs had the latter but not the former. If Sir Dennis’s thinking is spreading among senior police officers, the days of the PCSO could be numbered.