You know, there’s so much science on TV and in the papers these days.
I mean, I share in the glory of science every bit as much as people who actually work at it. I certainly know much more than they do, after all, I used to edit the London Evening Standard. But all you people who think science is interesting, fun and useful; well, yes. But, you know, it costs money. Money that the BBC could be spending on other things!
I mean, instead of a “mammoth of research” behind St. Pancras, with all those arrogant scientists making smells and stuff, we could build a big circular tent and fill it with crap. Though I wouldn’t let that Brian Cox play there this time. “Things can only get better” – I don’t know! You’d think he owns the solar system, whatever that is. Personally I think that Giordano Bruno fellow was hugely overrated. Really, he turned cosmology into some kind of religion. He was probably after some funding.
Anyway, you people, listen. Science is just one of many wonderful areas of human endeavour. I mean, we have classics, fine art, English literature, journalism, drama, economics, accountancy, film, politics, philosophy of many different kinds, tiddlywinks, tennis (lawn and real), and science. We should get the balance right. I mean in a cultured society, when money is short, why should real tennis or merchant banking get less public subsidy than science? Martin Rees is just a bishop, and here in the Guardian I have an absolute license to bash the bishop in public.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have had the third brandy. Still, the editor is bound to be able to sort this bollocks out. Or he can use the last one I wrote, I’m sure no one will spot the difference.
[With, at least so far, no apologies to or from Simon Jenkins.]
[But with a follow up in the Guardian.]