This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← [UPDATE 21-Jan - Video Added] Richard Live on 'The Daily Politics' Today

[UPDATE 21-Jan - Video Added] Richard Live on 'The Daily Politics' Today - Comments

Vaal's Avatar Comment 1 by Vaal

Ah Wooter, that time of the day they let you out of the straitjacket?

EDIT: Sorry Veronique, couldn't resist it :) I will desist.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:42:00 UTC | #433343

Big Gus's Avatar Comment 2 by Big Gus

clearmindvsban = Troll

Just repeating a logical fallacy again and again won't make it any more correct. Still at least you should be used to people pointing and laughing by now with all the practice you've had.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:43:00 UTC | #433344

Veronique's Avatar Comment 3 by Veronique

There are 35 comments from this troll in his comment list. (so far and that's this morning only!)

Would everyone please stop taking the bait!! What is up with you? The majority of us don't find this entertaining for one nanosecond. You know it is feeding the troll.

If you must give in and respond PLEASE do it through PMing the clown and not subject all of us to the repeated barrage of its iodicy and your meaningless, useless and wasted retorts.

I, for one, won't even bother reading any more comments today - it will be all over the front page together with its cohorts and you guys will take up more computer space with unnecessary responses.

I will go to ICH and Edge for the day

See you later when you stop this nonsense.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:55:00 UTC | #433351

Mayhemm's Avatar Comment 4 by Mayhemm

Back to the topic at hand...

Is there any way for Canadians to see this interview? All we get is "BBC Canada" and I don't think they get this show. Live stream?

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:25:00 UTC | #433356

DanDare's Avatar Comment 5 by DanDare

Oh I don't know veronique, its not often we get a troll at this level of stupid. Its kind of fun to play tickle with it.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:34:00 UTC | #433360

Nozzer's Avatar Comment 6 by Nozzer

In UK at least, you can watch the program live on your PC at

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:46:00 UTC | #433364

Dark Matter's Avatar Comment 7 by Dark Matter


"Oh I don't know veronique, its not often we get a troll at this level of stupid."

I agree - when it comes to Borat, Cock Muppett or Crazy MindedvsReason - it really does take a special kind of stupid to be so pathetically pig-ignorant.

It's very difficult to tell with the broken-English and the bizarre, incoherent ramble but I'm guessing that he is still stuck on the argument from "design" that the great Philosopher, David Hume, completely demolished centuries ago.

Borat confuse the items on his list (furniture, art, etc) which we know, a posteri, to have been actually manufactured with what some perceive as an appearance of "design" in nature.

Of course, anyone who watched "The Secrets of Chaos" programme last week or understands that Natural Selection is not a random process or is aware of the Anthropic Principle are far too clever to make such a stupid, childish mistake.

If he was genuinely curious as to why his tired, over blown rhetoric is so widely inaccurate he would use his time constructively to look up these things on Net. But he is not interested and that is why he is here to repeat the same, baseless, easily-disproven rubbish that we all laughed at last time.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:00:00 UTC | #433367

epeeist's Avatar Comment 8 by epeeist

Comment #452524 by DanDare:

Oh I don't know veronique, its not often we get a troll at this level of stupid. Its kind of fun to play tickle with it.
This particular troll has been doing teh stupid since 2007. It was amusing back then, but now it looks more like obsessive behaviour on its part.

Best just to mark it and ignore. Either it is someone with the brain the size of a peanut or a smartarse trying to provoke a reaction.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:01:00 UTC | #433368

MattHunX's Avatar Comment 9 by MattHunX

Damn! I missed this. Can anyone give me a link where I can watch the whole thing. I don't suppose the link given, leading to that two-minute talk is the real thing. Is it?

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:13:00 UTC | #433372

Mark Jones's Avatar Comment 10 by Mark Jones

Comment #452538 by MattHunX

I don't think you have? The item says RD will appear at 12:45 (it's 12:32 ATM in the UK).

See the link in Nozzer's comment above to watch live in the UK.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:37:00 UTC | #433379

Dark Matter's Avatar Comment 11 by Dark Matter

He hasn't been on yet but the whole programme is repeated on BBC politics at Midnight (or thereabouts).

You may be able to watch it on the BBC I-Player.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:43:00 UTC | #433382

chalkers's Avatar Comment 12 by chalkers

He's on right now!

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:46:00 UTC | #433384

MattHunX's Avatar Comment 13 by MattHunX

Oh, Alright then! Thanks! Will try!
Edit: "Not available in my area"

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:50:00 UTC | #433386

Mark Jones's Avatar Comment 14 by Mark Jones

John Denham too dense to understand the point; Lord Tebbit too conservative, with a small c.

EDIT: But great job by Richard to add to the consciousness raising. Softly, softly...

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:54:00 UTC | #433388

ajpb's Avatar Comment 15 by ajpb

Just finished watching this.

It did make me laugh that Tebbit referred to the child as "he" rather than "he or she" - perfectly demonstrating that the 'feminists consciousness raising' has also passed him by!

It was nice for Prof. Dawkins to actually have the last word for once.

Overall, they should have given a little extra time to it.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:58:00 UTC | #433389

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 16 by Cartomancer

Ye gods, is Norman Tebbit still allowed on television these days? I find it somewhat offensive that people still give this vile old homophobe a platform for his reactionary nastiness.

He just looms there like some dishevelled spirit of the very worst the 1980s had to offer, maintained in the present age solely by the sinister necromancy of self-serving vested interests.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:59:00 UTC | #433390

TrickyDicky's Avatar Comment 17 by TrickyDicky

A rough ride provided by 2 politicians scared of loosing any votes.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:00:00 UTC | #433391

ajpb's Avatar Comment 19 by ajpb

I was pleased to see an MP publically declare himself to be "without faith".


Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:01:00 UTC | #433393

paulifa1's Avatar Comment 18 by paulifa1

Watching??!! Doh! I Was just wondering why he wasn't on BBC2 at 12:45 (BBC Radio2 that is!!) I think I must be going senile, oh well, maybe I'll catch the repeat..

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:01:00 UTC | #433392

John Yates's Avatar Comment 20 by John Yates

The theme of Richard's appearance was about the labelling of children with the political or religious beliefs of their parents; that children should not automatically inherit the beliefs of their parents. Surprise surprise, Norman Tebbit didn't get it at all!

"What's the problem with calling a child born in Britain a 'British child'?"

Nothing at all, Norman, but calling a child "British" doesn't imply that the child holds a particular set of beliefs or tenets in the same way that labelling it "Christian" or "Muslim" might! Lord Tebbit looked particularly nonplussed throughout the whole segment, and even alleged that Richard has a "fetish" regarding the issue. Typical Conservative dunderhead, I'm afraid. Unfortunately the other chap who was sitting next to Richard, who himself professed no faith, didn't seem to understand the premise of Richard's presentation, either. In truth, it was a rather shabbily presented item (not by Richard but by the BBC), and the whole appearance couldn't have lasted longer than 3 minutes. Richard didn't have nearly enough time to respond to Lord Tebbit's misunderstading of the issue. I had been looking forward to this, but I'm not sure that the full gravity of the problem of assuming that children will share the religious beliefs of their parents came across very well, what with Richard's co-panelists not even grasping the basic idea. I would have liked to have heard Andrew Neil's thoughts on the matter.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:04:00 UTC | #433394

MattHunX's Avatar Comment 21 by MattHunX

Damn! I couldn't watch because it's "Not available in my area". Damn! Discrimination!!! :)

I hope someone will upload it on YouTube. I want to see RD owning those people.

Who are those two anyway?
I already learned from the posters here that one's a homophobe...

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:05:00 UTC | #433396

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 22 by Cartomancer

Tebbit can be discounted as an anachronistic dinosaur, but Denham is actually in the government now, and he is the very same politician who recently decided that having special faith consultation panels to advise on government policy would be a good idea. He describes himself as a secular humanist, but in reality he is anything but.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:07:00 UTC | #433397

Ardiem's Avatar Comment 23 by Ardiem

I could watch it but had no idea what Richard was saying (which defeated the purpose really) as the live TV iPlayer doesn't have subtitles. Damn.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:08:00 UTC | #433398

MattHunX's Avatar Comment 24 by MattHunX

John Denham appears to be "our man".

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:11:00 UTC | #433400

Modo's Avatar Comment 25 by Modo

I just watched it. It seems we have a long way to go in this consciousness-raising battle. I can’t believe how many people use a national identity label in comparison with religious labels. The response is always the same for me, and I’m disappointed Richard didn’t destroy it (not that I’m criticising, I would be a stammering wreck in a television studio).

National identities don’t come saddled, with competing opinions about historical events and the nature of reality. Religious labels do.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:16:00 UTC | #433404

Dark Matter's Avatar Comment 26 by Dark Matter


"John Denham appears to be "our man". "

I don't know if you're being ironic but, if not, then you are obviously unware of this:

"John Denham, our government's minister for communities, is going to have an advisory body made up of representatives of "faith" groups, further eroding the de facto secularism that has kept our society relatively stable and collegial, at least until recently. He pours scorn on secularists, which means the majority of the population who, whatever their faith or lack of it, are secularist in the sense that they do not wish religion, still less any one particular religion, to be in the driving seat of policymaking in this country. "

BTW, That's an excellent article by A C Graylin.

I was hoping that Richard would take him to task for treating those without a religion as second class citizens but he was there to talk about the self-evident absurdity of child labelling.

I wondered what Norman Tebbit would have said if Richard pointed out how absurd it would be for anyone to call their child a "Communist" child or a "Socialist" child?

As it was Richard was given very little time to deal with a very complex issue.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:33:00 UTC | #433407

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 27 by Jos Gibbons

I'm glad the two RD snippets are available online in a quickly accessible context, whether or not the whole episode is for those who would want it (it isn't). I agree it's good that, for once, RD got the last word (he usually doesn't). However, I must say, Denham/Tebbit really didn't get it, did they? For one thing, they kept using arguments that wouldn't explain distinguishing religion from other things, forcing them to tell lies, like political ideas not being cultural. Secondly, they conflated consciousness-raising objections to features of language with calling for intervention, when the RD interview with cheesy music featured him explicitly pointing out that conflation is false. Do these people have no standards of reasoning or research whatsoever when they defend religion-defending status quo?

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:46:00 UTC | #433413

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 28 by Peacebeuponme

The Smart Patrol (quoting Tebbit)

"What's the problem with calling a child born in Britain a 'British child'?"
This is a fantastically ill-considered argument.

There is nothing wrong with calling a child born in Britain British because he or she is British. In exactly the same way, we are able to 'label' a child born with a penis as 'male'.

When a child is too young to have developed personal religious and political views, then obviously calling them 'Christian' or 'Socialist' is incorrect, since they are not.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:00:00 UTC | #433418

MattHunX's Avatar Comment 29 by MattHunX

Dark Matter

But then why...?

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Denham admitted he was a 'secular humanist,' although he also said he learnt a lot from his Church of England upbringing.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:11:00 UTC | #433421

Ilovelucy's Avatar Comment 30 by Ilovelucy

Tebbit seems to have forgotten the fact that he was the one that brought in regulations in the early eighties that stopped granting automatic British citizenship to children born in Britain to non British parents. Hence why I have a British passport but my sister who was born in 84 has an Irish one.

His point was bollocks anyway, so I guess this is a minor quibble.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:14:00 UTC | #433422