Who needs the Middle East when you have Badger Cam?

The Bugle, audio newspaper for a visual world.

Hello Buglers, welcome to issue 4277 of The Bugle, a show which has now been tootling merrily into your pod brains for exactly 16 years this week.

16 years of pure, unadulterated unadulterated half-truths from me, Andy Zaltzman, and your evolving, revolving cast of guest co-hosts.

And on this truly historic occasion, it gives me great pleasure to welcome, as my co-host this week, as we begin the 17th year of this unremittingly, journalistically integrated, pure blast newscast, two people who, 16 years ago, by the happiest of coincidences, were also, just like this show, more than a decade and a half younger than they are now.

Firstly, in a desperate effort to to promote some tour dates next year and shift some tickets to a film, it's Taylor Swift.

Sorry, I'm just hearing that Taylor, named after snooker player Dennis, of course, can't make it.

Stuck in traffic.

Shame she said she'd been working on some sensational Middle East-based puns.

But luckily, we have the nearest like-for-like replacement available in Global Showbiz.

So, joining us from Kolkata, it's India's Taylor Swift himself.

Anuvab, pal.

Hello, Anuvab.

How are you?

I'm very good, Andy.

I'm about to embark on my E-RAS tour.

The numbers are supposed to be spectacular.

And

Taylor Swift in her tour caused an earthquake.

I plan to cause an earthquake as well, but just for very different reasons that I haven't established yet.

Also joining us from Melbourne, Australia.

Welcome back to Sammy Shah.

Welcome back to the Bugle, Sammy.

Thank you very much.

I consider myself more of a Rihanna than a Taylor Swift, but, you know, whatever.

Well, I mean, we are appealing to pretty much 100%

of humanity with at this point.

We are recording on the 17th of October 2023.

On this day, in the year 1091,

the first reported tornado in England happened with winds estimated at over 200 miles an hour.

This was based on reports written 30 years later.

So based on the immutable law of human exaggeration, that means the winds were actually an estimated 28 miles an hour and caused someone's hat to partially fall off, which was quite a big deal in the late 11th century, to be fair.

The 12th century celebrity historian William of Malmesbury described it as, quotes,

a great spectacle for those watching from afar, but a terrifying experience for those standing near, although it is possible he was talking about a rugby match.

But we just don't know.

As always, a section of this podcast is going straight in the bin.

This week, a special Bugle 16th birthday commemorative section.

At 16 now, the Bugle can start voting in some parts of the world, including, crucially, Ecuador and the Channel Island of Sark.

So that's very exciting.

We can now vote in those parts of the world.

It's time to rig some elections in Ecuador.

That's what I'm thinking.

We're

happy to rig elections.

Look, Buglers, if you want an election near you rigged, just email us and we will do what we can.

Um the Bugle can now buy cigarettes, uh although obviously it wouldn't want to if your podcast starts coughing and spluttering.

It's not a great listen.

It also means that the Bugle is, depending on where you listen to it, now legally allowed to consent to

be be played at the same time as another podcast, also over the age of sixteen, I think.

Um sadly, the minimum age for marriage in the UK was recently raised from sixteen to eighteen, so the planned wedding between the Bugle and the two thousand one born TV drama series 24 will not be happening yet.

Bit of an age gap.

It would have been fascinating to see Jack Bower's comedic take on the week's Global News and to see what storylines they came up with for the Bugle.

Could the Los Angeles counter-terrorist unit stop the Bugle's Machiavellian scheme to establish a professional four-day cricket championship in California before it was too late?

I personally would have watched that repeatedly.

Also, the Bugle can at the age of 16, and this is not a moment too soon, now go and and get a proper job.

It can also change its name legally.

And from what I've heard from sources close to the Bugle, it is considering

a change of name at this point, age 16.

Amongst the possibilities, the Barack Obama interview show.

Apparently, there are certain legal issues with that.

Zaltor the Merciless dispenses wise judgment to his adoring yet fearful subjects.

I can see that working.

Bible studies with Mildred and Herbert.

Bit of a mix-up.

Andy Zaltzman's fashion, style, and romance tips cast let me live my dream tonight last week I'm not sure that'll work and two celebrities phone it in and take the cash I mean you have to adopt to the changing podcast market or hot rod and dragster ride again

all those are possibilities but that section is in the bin

Top story this week and

the world is fed

still

I will admit uh as I hinted at last week and also on my radio show, I've I've I've n I don't think I've ever found it harder to write comedy than in the last couple of weeks.

We're now 10 days on from the terrorist atrocities in Israel, ten days in which the world's shrinking supplies of optimism have officially reached critically endangered level.

I think there's a secret vial of optimism somewhere in a special laboratory.

It's either in Siberia or Texas, I'm not sure, just in case optimism needs to be artificially released back into human circulation.

So all's not lost.

But it's even even now hard to be hopeful about the future of optimism as a mental state.

And that shows where the world and our species is right now.

It remains a horrendous time of terrible suffering, loss, and tragedy, where the idea of comedy seems at once futile and inappropriate.

So I don't know quite how to address this story.

Now, it's the second week

we've tried to look at it.

All I can say, and I'll just get this out of the way, due to my background, I do have an opinion on it.

I'm Jewish, I'm human, I'm related to people, and I'm from planet Earth.

I'm a veteran of both the 20th and 21st centuries, and therefore of both the second and third millenniums.

As a result of these facts that have shaped my identity, I've developed over the course of my life a distinct aversion to all of the following in no particular order of dispreference.

Terrorism, anti-Semitism, discrimination in general, murder, war, oppression, intolerance, cycles of violence and revenge, people being driven from their homes, human rights atrocities, humanitarian catastrophes, especially the more avoidable ones, and intractable political disputes left in the hands of leaderships that appear to have no desire to act in the true interests of the people they purport to represent.

Oh, and genocide.

Oh, and another one, the looming threat of a major global conflict breaking out.

Just not my bags.

And I also have an aversion to people celebrating, glorifying, and justifying any of those things for any reason.

Also, not my bag.

I prefer peace and I prefer sport.

In fact, I prefer everything, to be honest.

It's,

I don't know how you guys have...

have sort of found this.

I mean, just from a, I mean, from a personal comedic point of view, how have you sort of tried to deal with it or process it?

Whether professionally, from a, like I say, a comedian's point of view, or just

as a resident of this crazy planet?

Well, you know, Sammy, Andy, I think the local newspaper in Calcutta, where I am, has helped me quite a lot.

The local newspaper in Calcutta has got the Telegraph, and we're on, it's the only English language newspaper.

And the part of India I'm from is sort of a little bit anti-Prime Minister Modi.

They've never voted for him here.

And the headline on the verge of what could be a world war said, Chief Minister of West Bengal may or may not attend Armin Van Buren DJ's conversation.

Threat of war looms on the world was the second headline.

And I think it's really about what

you choose to prioritize.

And I know this is very important to all of you on the verge of a world war, but the reason the chief minister of West Bengal may not attend the Dutch DJ Armin Van Buren's house music concert is because she broke her leg while trying to fundraise for the state of Bengal in Madrid while jogging in a park.

So it all depends on how you prioritize which news item, really.

See, for me, I've found nothing but joy in X or slash Twitter because now I find that I can get whatever facts I choose to like, dislike, believe in in the moment over there.

It is it is a reality that you can decide on based on whatever is on display.

Not actual facts, none of those can be found there, but but just I have seen, and I'm not exaggerating at any point over here, I have seen posts on Twitter or slash X claiming Hamas is willing to do a peace settlement.

I've seen posts saying Israel planned the whole thing.

I've seen a bridge collapse in Pueblo, Colorado, the ninth most populous city in Colorado, and someone claiming that that was caused by Islamic terrorism, which means basically ISIS is really setting their sights low in this one.

And I've even seen a post claiming that what happened to Russell Brand was a coordinated attack which happened to Israel.

So the same people are clearly behind both things.

So I figure at this point, you know, we always thought that humanity would end because of artificial intelligence being, you know, the Terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or the the t1000 in its liquid form it turns out it's just bot farms from bangalore with you know blinking lights that just tweet out things like yeah but we should kill them all i say every time you do anything online it's it's a remarkable future if you look at it from a different angle that's all my favorite thing on twitter that i saw was there was a photograph that said head of the mossad and it was a photograph of mongol warlord chenges khan

and if the mongol warlord Chengis Khan is not the current head of the Mossad, it's not a world I really want to live in.

I mean, it is truly extraordinary,

the sort of deluge of misinformation.

And it has to be said that the authorities are coming down like a ton of feathers on our social media companies.

The European Commission has made, quotes, a request for information.

from Elon Musk's pet toy platform X, formerly Twitter.

The X, I think, is short for Extremely Good Living Parable of the Dangers of Excessive Wealth and Power.

But I guess we have to think back to the words of the great English novel Easter Jane Austen, who famously wrote, It is a truth universally acknowledged that a delicate, harrowing, and heartbreaking geopolitical situation in possession of a grandmother load of historical baggage must be in want of a deluge of online disinformation pumped out by multi-billion dollar social media outlets who actively abrogate any form of responsibility for their output, influence and impact.

Her publishers, sadly, weren't having it and they made R Janie a rom-com instead.

But as a bit of a compromise, she got to keep the original title, Pride and Prejudice.

The publishers wanted to run with Lizzie Gets Busy, but to be fair to her, she wouldn't compromise.

You have to give the European Union some time, though.

If with enough patience, I'm sure that they can get Elon Musk to also make USB C a standard charging apparatus for Twitter.

So I think that's where the priority is right now.

I actually came across a term which

was new to me.

This is

something that is being used to describe social media right now and it's called conspiritualism,

which is a comp, I'm not even making this up, it's a combination of conspiratorial political tendencies and anti-scientific mysticism,

which is why I would like to add my own version of that to the lexicon, which is bullholism,

which is a combination of someone who believes in bullshit and someone who is an asshole.

And I feel like that is where my linguistic prowess lies.

I mean that could become one of the world's leading movements.

I think.

I mean there's a lot of people that sign up for that.

I think.

I think my wife's yoga teacher has been teaching this for me.

Both of you, a question for you, do you think if you buy a company and fire all the fact checkers, that it tends to have some impact on facts when a world event occurs?

Oh, I don't think you can necessarily draw a causal link between getting rid of all the fact checkers checkers and there being no facts left.

Can you?

That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

And I do my own research.

I'll have you know.

I want to know what Jada Pinkett-Smith says.

She's the only person I trust now in the whole world.

Before we move on to,

well,

what else is happening in the world?

Just picking up on what you were saying about the way we look for distractions.

And I have buried myself in the comforting embrace of sport as much as ever this week.

Early last week on Tuesday morning on the BBC News website, its most read story, and remember this is last Tuesday in what had unquestionably not been a slow news week.

In fact, one of the fastest news weeks in history.

Its most read story was this.

Man trains home cameras to repel badgers and foxes.

And that, once again, shows.

We as a species, we are trained to turn our eyes away from things we don't want to see.

I do want to know more about this story now.

I've been avoiding the news, but now I'm curious.

I think I'm diving back in because how do you do that?

Well, I mean, he's...

He's used various cameras at his home and he's sort of used, I guess, sort of AI-type technology to train the cameras to recognize foxes and badgers and then activate

some sort of alarm that scares them off.

So, I mean, this will

This will result in the AI coordinating with the badgers and foxes to then take over the man's house and kill everyone he loves.

You know how this ends.

I don't know why he's doing this, but fine.

Australia news now.

And well, Sammy, you've lived in Australia, what, now, 20 odd years or so?

12, but it feels like 20.

Australia has time.

Time dilation is different over here,

Well, you know, we live in an age of exaggeration.

You've lived in Australia for 500 years.

Let's go with that.

I arrived here with Captain Cook.

That's correct.

Yes.

This week we had a historic referendum in Australia.

We talked with Tom Ballard about it a few weeks ago.

And the referendum has now happened, and it's been won by a vast margin.

by the no campaign this was the Indigenous voice to parliament referendum by 60% to 40%.

Australia has rejected the proposal to amend its constitution to recognise Indigenous people and establish a federal advisory body known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice or the Indigenous Voice to Parliament or the Voice or Voiceo or Voicey to make it more appealing to Australians or Big V.

It's been rejected.

Now, it's always hard as an outsider not sort of immersed in a country's politics to understand votes, votes like this.

So can you sort of explain why it was rejected by by such a large margin and what that means for Australia as a nation?

Well, yeah, because on a paper it felt like or it seemed like this was just a vote for a federal advisory body, right?

You know, you vote yes if you want it and no if you don't want it.

But over the days, a lot of nuance came into it.

So, um, you know, for the yes side, it became about respecting the legacy and experience of Indigenous Australians and trying a new approach to address ongoing health, educational, socioeconomic issues.

For the no side, it became about just expressing how racist they are.

I mean,

like, they argued that it was about, you know, the yes campaign hadn't clarified its goals, or they didn't want to enshrine race in the constitution, or the ongoing cost of living crisis wasn't being addressed.

But really, it was just about how racist they are.

And many of them take affront to that description, and they say that we aren't racist.

And the best rebuttal to that is, and the most accurate one, is yes, you f ⁇ ing are.

And so, and the the proof of that lies in the fact that the person who was happiest with this outcome was tony abbott there was an actual headline that said tony abbott is happy with the outcome of the referendum and the only thing that makes tony abbott happy is racism it's it's the um it's what he seasons his onions with in fact so um yeah so basically uh the racists won and they and

look a lot of people were surprised all those people were white um every non-white person in australia knew this is what was going to happen so that's basically basically how it went.

Right, because I mean, when you say it seasoned his onion, he famously, Tony Abbott, ate unpeeled raw onions live on national television.

So I mean, onions.

Not once, but two onions

at two separate occasions,

completely mystifying everyone the second time as well.

And yet he's still allowed to speak in public, which is bizarre.

I think once you've eaten, I mean, once you could write off as a mistake or just a you know bad luck, you accidentally eat an unpeeled raw onion live on on television twice.

I think at that point, you need to be removed from public life for the good of your nation.

There was a moment after he ate the onion where he justified it as saying the farmer who grew the onions was really proud of them.

So I thought I'd give it a go.

And I really felt like that was our chance to test how many things he was willing to try if the farmer was proud of growing them.

We really could have pushed the envelope there, but the country chickened out as they did every time.

There's something I found in this referendum, Tammy, and you can correct me, but I think this could be a brilliant thing for all democracies and referendums.

So, apparently, one of the things they did is that there was a third category for people who said they didn't know how to vote.

So, apparently, the appeal was, if you don't know, vote no, which is brilliant.

I mean, it would have definitely changed the Brexit outcome.

If in the world you have yes, no, don't know, but don't know really means no.

It was easily the most accurate description of all no voters is them just saying, no rhymes with no, and I like the word no.

Yes doesn't rhyme with anything I can think of.

I guess I'm voting no.

And that was it.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

Great campaigning.

Because you said it was, this was

to establish a body.

that could make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

So it was quite limited in its in its remit.

And you as an outsider, looking at this, I could see arguments in favour of bringing an end to centuries of racism, prejudice, exploitation, marginalisation, and injustice.

And I couldn't quite see why people would be against that.

But as I say, it's hard as an outsider.

But I tried to read around it, and some of the arguments put forward for being against were that it might risk creating inequalities.

So it's best to stick with the inequalities that have served Australia so very well over the years that everyone is happy and familiar with.

or that it might not work, that it might be ineffective.

So, why go through the logistical and constitutional hassle of changing things when there are already numerous highly ineffective systems in place that are functioning ineffectively?

So, that seemed to me what it boiled down to.

That analysis was more astute and accurate than anything we've seen on Australian television since the referendum loss.

It's mostly just been a lot of people going, I wonder why this happened.

Do you know?

And everyone going, no.

And the rest of us just screaming into the void.

Amongst the list of those who were against it, you mentioned Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison, another former Prime Minister, assaulted far-right political parties, including the Australian Protectionist Party, Australia First Pauline Hansen's One Nation Party.

I mean, that's...

And that's not a kind of glorious

set of people

to be following.

I would call it a murderer's row, but that is being unfair to murderers

who at least accomplish something in life.

I guess, and it's the first, it was the first national referendum in Australia since 1999.

Then, when that was on

whether to keep the monarchy or not, wasn't it?

That's correct.

It was the one to get rid of at the time Queen Elizabeth as the leader of the country.

And as I'm sure you have guessed already, we lost that one.

So, Australians have categorically said yes to old

German descendant monarchs ruling over us, no to indigenous people having any self-respect and dignity.

I mean, it just reminds me.

I mean, look, gentlemen, it reminds me of an old quote from Lord Lindithgo when there was some talk of setting up an Indian advisory council to allow Indians to have a say in their own governance in the 1930s.

And he said a very astute thing.

He said, you know, if you give a voice to people whose land it is, where does it all end?

This is a major concern.

It's a major concern.

I mean, I think, you know, without wishing to lecture Australia on how it conducts its affairs, I think you can learn a lesson from the United Kingdom because this was an issue about adding something new to the constitution.

And the lesson is, never write your constitution down.

Because that was the mistake.

When you write it down, we've seen this in America.

People argue about it.

Here in the UK, we've never written it down.

We just wing it.

We make it up as we go along.

And because there's nothing there, you can even make bits up for yourself.

You know, I believe it is my constitutional right to watch sport, think about sport, and watch myself thinking about sport in my special sport think-watching mirror up to 24-25 hours a day, 7.1 days a week, 399 days a year.

Just good to have a bit of wiggle room.

And you cannot show me in our constitution where it says that I can't do that.

I also believe it's my constitutional right to have a sip of my tea whenever I want whilst contemplating which elected politicians I would send on a fact-finding fact-finding trip to Neptune, leaving tomorrow.

Him.

Definitely her.

Also, her, just in case.

And of course, absolutely.

Him.

So, yeah, if I can teach you anything, Australia, don't write it down.

It'll only cause trouble.

Australians aren't much for reading things that are written down unless they're on the back of a wrapper of an ice cream lolly or a can of beer.

So this might...

I think you're right.

I think the problem was the format where we were trying to write this new rule is where we felt you made the big mistake.

Also, in terms of the idea of voice to parliament, I am a white, privately educated, middle-class man from the southeast England area of Europe.

My voice to parliament has, I think I can reasonably say, been at least fairly well represented through history.

Also, as a white, privately educated middle-class man from South East England, I really enjoy understatements.

Indian legal system news now.

Well, Anuvab, for many years on this show, you have been the Bugles Indian Legal System correspondent, and you have brought joy and insights to that role.

It's provided us with huge entertainment over the years.

And this week, there's been a huge win in the Indian legal system for two late millennium superstars of science.

Charles Darwin, the original Chuck D, the theory of evolution star, tortoise, botherer and hipster.

Just look at that beard.

And his fellow theorizing celeb, Bertie Einstein, little Freddy Physics himself.

I spelled Freddy with a pH, by the way, who, of course, cranked out the theory of relativity, which I think I'm a bit rusty on my sons, but I think the theory of relativity proves that being whacked on the knee with a hammer hurts less if you've already got one arm stuck in a threshing machine.

It's something along those lines.

So just bring us up to date with exactly what happened in the third court case.

So, gentlemen, you know, the Indian legal system, as you know, is an entirely independent body, just loosely based on the British legal system by loosely i mean entirely

and most most of the law is practiced essentially in the same buildings that the british left behind

and our apex court like yours is the supreme court of india and the supreme court of india in my mind made a very rash judgment last week when it dismissed a petition a public interest litigation from a young man called Raj Kumar.

And

this gentleman had challenged Darwin's theory of evolution and Einstein's theory of special relativity.

And he said that he was taught these things, and whatever he studied was wrong.

Now, here's the thing.

He filed these petitions under a fundamental right.

And he said, and in India, there's an article called Article 32, which is the fundamental right to belief.

And he said that this destroys my fundamental right to belief because I believe that these gentlemen are talking nonsense.

Now,

because India doesn't have things to do,

clearly, two justices,

it's not a busy enough time in the world.

Two justices heard this, a dual bench of the Supreme Court, Justice Sanjay Kishankole and Justice Shudan Shu Julia.

And it was a fundamental constitutional challenge of Article 32.

And he said, I don't want to listen to this nonsense.

I want to believe whatever I want to believe.

And in a very complicated,

litigated sort of argument, the judges said, Shut up, go re-educate yourself.

Now,

you guys may think whatever you think, but gentlemen, I think Darwin and Einstein have had a free reign for too long.

I'm with Mr.

Rajkumar here because enough, you know.

And another guy who I think was bullshitting, Pythagoras.

Yeah, I've had in with him.

i've walked i've walked diagonally in many places in india and it's not quicker than the straight lines because i've been stopped by a cow or a tuk-tuk so he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and you know whose time is up also isaac newton his time is up I felt that one coming.

That's fair.

Yeah.

Because I'll tell you why, because I want Mr.

Krutchwai.

I'll fund him myself to go back to Supreme Court because laws of motion, nonsense.

Law one of motion, an object is at rest and remains at rest.

And an object is in motion, remains in motion at constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by an imbalance force, wrong.

I've been to Glasgow on a Saturday night.

And after a gig, I have seen people moving in ways where Newton would have killed himself.

Again,

that law doesn't apply.

So, yes, Supreme Court has junked this guy's public interest litigation.

But I would, in fact, ask Buglers to find this gentleman and support him and go back to court and challenge at least a number of other scientists charles law boyle's law time's up time's up

i do like the fact that the supreme court didn't tell him he is wrong in questioning them they just said what has this got to do with us please keep us out of this this sounds like it's personal the the exact quote was then you improve your theory what is the supreme court supposed to do you say you study something in school, you were a science student, now you say that those theories are wrong.

If you believe that the theories are wrong, then the Supreme Court has nothing to do.

They really, really did not like being dragged into this fight, and they're very worried about being caught in the crossfire.

Correct.

And it would be lovely if the Supreme Court had passed a judgment saying that Einstein and Newton's theories impede on the fundamental belief system of Indians.

Because, you know, by that logic, we should all be floating in mid-air.

You know, I think gravity is unnecessary.

I mean, I do have a bit of sympathy with the plaintiff, Mr.

Raj Kumar, because, you know, I've looked at evolution

and

we've got wasps.

I mean, they should have died out.

How could natural selection exist given that the axolotl still exists, but the saber-toothed tiger does not?

I mean, who would you take to win in a fight between those two?

And dinosaurs were obviously fake.

I do base this on a free plastic dinosaur that came with a packet of breakfast cereal when I was a kid.

But, you know, clearly, that's just evidence that it was all a hoax.

In terms of relativity, E definitely does not equal MC squared.

Energy equals, apparently, mass times the speed of light squared, because from a recent afternoon sitting on the sofa feeling really lethargic despite having put on weight, E did not seem to equal M anything squared, let alone the speed of light.

So, frankly, I'm right with him, and I'm disappointed by the Indian Supreme Court yet again.

Completely.

I mean, when I ask people what time is it, I get an answer, don't I?

Nobody tells tells me, well, it depends.

How far you're standing from me and what the distance are moving.

That's exactly me.

Raj Kumar really is the hero that, not that we asked for, but the one we've got.

And I think we need to learn to be grateful.

While we're on the subject of court cases, there was another story from Kenya in which an unqualified lawyer or fake lawyer, as he's been presented presented in the in the media coverage has been arrested despite having appeared in 26 cases before high court judges magistrates and the court of appeal and won all 26

which suggests that i mean for i mean for a start this must be made into a film if it's not made into a film hollywood and humanity will have failed 26 and oh that is that he must know what he's doing uh it also to me it proves that you know and my wife wife was used to be a lawyer

Being a lawyer is one of those things you can't learn to do you've either got it or you haven't it's like dancing charisma and being an astronaut and and also I would say you know if you're 26 and oh you've earned the right surely I mean no legal qualification can match that if you've got a non-qualified surgeon who's 26 and oh or a fully qualified surgeon who's three and 15 which one are you going to choose for your life-saving surgery?

That's what I would ask.

This is brilliant.

I mean, this gentleman, Brian Mowender,

you know, he won 26 cases.

And again,

what you guys did with sort of English law in the rest of the world, one of the most brilliant things that you guys did, Andy, by you guys, I mean you specifically.

Going back to the 14th century, you know, all the way to the Magna Carta, when you set up the whole shebang, you know, and export it around the world, is you introduced two very important things you need to fight a case, not a law degree, but a wig and a gown.

And look at any photo of Mr.

Mwender.

He's wearing a wig and he's got a gown.

Now, you go into court, you know, dressed like a rascal.

Of course, you're not going to win a court case, but you go and dress like that.

Any case, divorce, property, murder, you got a wig and a gown.

You can get shit done.

I just want to point out that this proves something that I have been arguing with my mother for for 24 years now, because she was disappointed at me for doing an English literature degree and becoming a comedian when my first cousin became a lawyer.

And this proves that anyone can be a lawyer because this guy did not go and then try making it as a stand-up comedian.

A much harder job, it turns out.

You do 26 gigs and get laughs each time and then we talk Brian.

A former governor of Nairobi, Mike Sonko, justified

the unqualified lawyer by saying he's never killed anyone.

He's not a terrorist.

And to me, that should be the absolute minimum for a lawyer.

I'm not sure that's something that you need to, whether you're qualified or not.

I mean, that is absolute bare minimum.

And of course, this kind of thing couldn't happen here in the UK.

We treat our legal system extremely seriously.

It is absolutely sacrosanct, central to our public life.

We will have unelected incompetence with absolutely no relevant skills or experience as the finging prime minister, but not in our legal system.

Some things are not up for negotiation.

Cricket news now and well the biggest sporting event in the history of the known universe took place last week in terms of, well, I don't know, hype

in terms of the crowd allegedly in the stadium.

India played Pakistan in the Cricket World Cup.

Only a group stage match.

It's still possible they could meet again in a semi-final or final.

It took place in the Narendra Modi Stadium, which I think we've talked about at various times over the last couple of years on the Bugle.

It's the huge stadium in Ahmedabad that was rebuilt

and opened a couple of years ago and England played a test match there.

It was renamed on the day before the game, I think, if I remember rightly, Anubab, as the Narendra Modi Stadium.

And they suddenly announced that its capacity was not the 105,000 that they'd said it would be in advance, but suddenly it had become 130,000 without anyone having noticeably put in 25,000 extra seats overnight.

It transformed instantly from sports facility to

full-scale propaganda tool.

And this game between India and Pakistan took place in this stadium with

what was described as 130,000 people and whether there were actually that many or not, it's kind of impossible to say.

I think there was one Pakistan fan spotted in the crowd by the commentators.

It's been a bit of an issue at this World Cup that it's been very hard for not just Pakistani

journalists and commentators to get visas, but even people of Pakistani origin.

So colleagues of mine who were trying to get over there to cover it for the BBC did not get a visa.

It's, I mean, when does sports fully transition into

outright political grandstanding, Anubab?

I mean, I think we might have crossed that barrier.

Well, I don't know.

I don't know what you guys are complaining about because I think this is a good way to

really do world events, you know, because don't give anybody visas, right?

Host world events, always host world events.

It's good plan by the Prime Minister.

Don't give anyone visas.

And when they come, shout at them with religious sloganeering.

Make sure they have bad hotel food.

Have an air of menace about the game.

So they have one supporter and we have 130,000.

And eventually make sure cricket is a world event where, like, American sports is called a world event, but only Indians will play Indians, watched by Indians.

That's a good way to do it.

Um, it became, you know, it became quite testy.

Uh, the Pakistani batsman Mohammad Riswan, after doing a great knock, had to listen to some religious sloganeering as he walked back.

The Israeli ambassador of India

somehow related the cricket match to what's going on between the Hamas terrorists in Gaza.

And look, I think it is time for controversial world politics to enter sport.

In fact, I would attribute the 69 knot outs scored by Colin Ackerman of Holland against New Zealand as a direct victory for Anne Frank.

Indeed, Afghanistan's victory over England as a continuation of the third Anglo-Afghan war.

That's what they talk about when they say the great game.

It was just that, the cricket matches.

Exactly.

And who is spinner Rashid Khan, if not just an avatar of the Nawab of Afghanistan, Satiq Muhammad Khan V?

And who is Joss Butler, if not General Alexander Eustace, who laid the siege of Kandahar?

Who are these people?

So if cricket politics and controversy cannot mix, how can we watch the game?

And I say, you know, Indians are true fans of cricket, true fans, so much so that the World Cup opening versus New Zealand had three people in the audience and two other members of my family in an empty stadium.

Whereas the India-Pakistan game had 130,000 people shouting religious nonsense.

So, really, you know, some people have been arguing that Indians are just fans of Indians and not cricket.

But look at the evidence on the ground.

You know, there are grounds which have nine people, 14 people, people are showing up.

We're not a very populated country, so we're doing our best for closing the game.

Sami, I mean, from the sort of Pakistan point point of view, that's now eight World Cup defeats in a row to India.

It's, I mean, that's that's hard to deal with, isn't it?

I think at this point, and I say this as someone who isn't planning on going back to Pakistan anytime soon, I think we should maybe stop playing cricket for a while.

I don't know if it's working out the way we would like it to.

I feel like the emotional and psychological and physical damage it's causing.

I know my parents, for example, who at this point are have got it used to be every time there's a match between India and Pakistan, there would be heart attacks.

Actual people would get heart attacks and end up in hospital because the stress and tension of the match.

Now it's just depression.

Now it's just a constant state of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

So I don't know if it's good for us.

One of the complaints that the Pakistan

coach Mickey Arthur made was that because of the

overwhelmingly Indian nature of the stadium,

the players didn't even get to hear a single Pakistani song playing.

One of the songs he mentioned was Dil Dil Pakistan, a very popular song.

They said they couldn't hear that.

It had an effect on the players.

I don't know if there was any song that could have gotten Pakistan across the line at this point.

Maybe Eye of the Tiger done in Urdu is what we really need because nothing else has worked.

And again, it was a fair playing field.

It was 1030,000 people shouting abuse.

Actually,

I just want to correct you there.

I did some research fact-checking, and it was 129,997 people.

There were three Pakistanis.

This is true.

There were three Pakistanis who were Pakistani Americans, which is how they managed to get the visa.

And I can guarantee you they were fing quiet.

So, again, a fair place a fair place for their you know for their mental health very good for their mental health i think that that this is what this is why it's such a good sporting country india

i mean it it is one of the the sort of defining certainly of cricket the defining rivalries of certainly modern cricket but the bizarre thing is they barely ever play because

um the sort of political situation beyond cricket has now become so so fraught it used to be that they played all the time they would play in india they play in pakistan they'd play in the UAE, they played in Canada, I think,

at one point.

And when the only time they played now is in an international tournament.

And I've been to games in England and in Australia where Pakistan and India have played.

And the players seem to get on really well.

The fans get on pretty well.

There's friendly banter outside the stadiums.

They sit next to each other in the grounds.

And I've seen them play in Birmingham here.

But politics will not let this happen.

And it's, I don't know, it's a kind of sad reflection on sort of how sports has ordered become co-opted into this bizarre sort of political

orbit where they can't just let it entertain people.

You were saying,

Andy, how you found sports was your escape this week, right?

You could dive into sports and block out the rest of the world of true sports.

Think about the Pakistani fans.

They can't even do that because their team got thrashed so terribly that now they have no choice but to focus on politics.

Now, I find it really sad, gentlemen, that now both the teams, India and Pakistan, really good cricket teams.

And, you know, they focus on the cricket, which is really disappointing.

And now the nations are polarized and political and have views.

I much preferred cricket in the mid-90s, where everyone was a little bit corrupt.

If you remember, a bunch of Indian cricketers, Manoj Prabhaka, a bunch of others, were up for sale, which was very good.

There were Pakistani cricketers like Salib Malik, who came out and said he could fix a match anytime, anyway.

And the good thing is, when you saw them play, there was, of course, the rivalry, but there was also the underlying thing of who's for sale.

And that was a lovely thing, and that's not there anymore because everyone's rich, and that's really unfortunate.

And of course, in the middle of that, there was also Imran Khan and Wasim Akram, who everybody wanted to sleep with.

So there was a different kind of relationship there.

So there were so many more things going on than cricket.

So I missed those days where people were

thieves but beautiful, you know, and

that always, corruption always takes away nationalism.

That's why I much prefer corruption.

One other cricket story, and this is probably the greatest good news story of the millennium so far.

Cricket is going to be back in the Olympics in the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles.

Cricket is going to return after a 128-year gap.

Great Britain reigning champions from the 1900 Paris Games, where they beat a French team.

Both teams, I think, were made up of English club cricketers from memory.

It's quite a weird story.

It's worth reading about on the internet if you've got a bit of time to spare, which almost certainly, if you're listening to this podcast, you definitely do.

The T20 format is what's going to be used in the Olympics, which is the shorter format.

The games last about three or four hours.

But I'm hoping this will be just the start and that ideally within a couple of Olympics, it will expand and all 190 odd members of the IOC will have a five-day test match team in it and the entire Olympic cricket tournament will just roll on and on and on eternally so there will just be cricket every day for the rest of time and the Olympics will never end and that that will be that that will be when humanity has succeeded I'm so glad this is happening gentlemen because uh the moment the Olympics are involved you know 14 year old Russians and Chinese people get involved in a very heavy movie, you know.

And I really can't wait to see Russia and China field 14-year-olds, you know, like their gymnasts in a cricket event.

Because, I mean, the average Indian team is in their mid-30s.

Our captain has a significant belly, you know, and he's a great batsman, but he's got quite a belly.

And I think it's going to be really hard for us to compete against a 14-year-old Chinese team who've already begun training.

They're already in a basement training, fast bowling, preparing for this World Cup.

I'm sure Pakistan will have the same problem.

England will have the same problem.

Australia, South Africa.

So, you know, I think the Commonwealth

days are limited with cricket.

I do think also one of the best spots is that, as Anuba was saying, the corruption will come back into cricket in an old school way because the IOC is good at that.

If they're not good at anything else, they are good at corruption.

I cannot wait for the next Olympics with the cricket to be held in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and any other country in the Middle East that has got nothing to do with any of the sports played in the Olympics.

Exciting times for the planet.

Well, it's been a delight talking to you both.

This week I feel I feel cheered and enlivened.

So thank you.

Thank you for that.

I've spent most of

just don't look at anything after we're done here.

Just close your eyes, cover your ears and lie down.

That's a record of

gazing into a complete void of despair, shouting, why?

I've just had enough of it in the last 10 days or so.

Sammy and Anivab, thank you very much.

Do you have anything to plug, Sammy?

I have a podcast as well.

It is a news satire podcast.

I don't know if that's a form that you're familiar with at all.

But it may not be the funniest news satire podcast, but it is a 15-minute one, so it doesn't take too much time to listen to.

It's once a week.

It's called News weekly that's w-e-a-k-l-y was the dump one i went for there um and you can find that wherever good podcasts are distributed

anything uh anything to plug I only have one thing which is sort of lingering from last year.

On the 26th of October on the Sky History channel, I went on a little trip with our Bugle friend, Mr.

Al Murray, across India.

He did a travel show called Why Does Everyone Hate the British Empire?

That's a great title.

Topic we have all addressed, gentlemen.

And

we found no particular reason why they hate the British Empire, but that they just do.

And it's four episodes.

I think Al goes to Jamaica, he goes to Australia, he comes to India.

And

he's, and this is on Sky History, I think at some point.

And four episodes starts on the 26th.

But he did say of the four places he went to, that India was the only place where that didn't ask for money.

So every other place said, Reparations, give us cash.

In India, they didn't ask for money.

They want it in diamonds, that's why, not in cash.

Yeah, correct, correct.

Well, I guess that's when you're when you're when you're starting a new TV show, you want a format that can go on for series after series after series.

And you know, working out why people hate the British is, I mean, that's that's got legs, that has definitely got legs.

Thank you, history.

Uh, there are two more weeks left of the the news quiz before the current series wraps up.

You can find that on BBC Sounds or elsewhere on the internet after a bit of a delay.

Thank you very much for listening.

We will be back next week with Riyalina and Tiff Stevenson.

Until then, Buglers, goodbye.

And don't forget, you can join the Bugle voluntary subscription scheme.

to help keep this show free, flourishing and independent by going to thebuglepodcast.com and clicking the donate button and our premium level voluntary subscribers will get an exclusive monthly ask Andy show in which I will field all of your questions apart from the ones I don't want to answer.

Anyway,

do go to that bit of the website.

Goodbye.

Hi buglers, it's producer Chris here.

I just wanted to very quickly tell you about my new podcast, Mildly Informed, which is in podcast feeds and YouTube right now.

Quite simply, it's a show where me and my friend Richie review literally anything.

So please come join us wherever you get your podcasts right now.