In a speech to the think-tank Demos, Dianne Abbott, the female Labour MP, has given a horrendously matronising and ham-fisted speech entitled “Britain’s crisis of masculinity”.

Britain, she suggested, is in danger of having “a generation of British men without realistic heroes”, of becoming “a nation of atomised, lonely, entrepreneurial boys, who often have lives without meaning”.

In the past, she said, what “made” a British man was “earning, providing and belonging”. These days, it has “melted into taking, owning and consuming”.

This was a Frankenstein’s monster of unsubstantiated and malicious generalisations (“I think that we’re seeing the rise of a ‘Viagra and Jack Daniels culture’”); disembodied statistics (“men are 56 per cent more likely to develop [cancer] and 67 per cent more likely to die”); simplistic historical narratives (“rapid social change has left many British men … caught between the “stiff-upper lip” approach of previous generations and today’s cultural tornado of male cosmetics”) and whiny, empty hand-wringing (“I’m particularly troubled by a culture of hyper-masculinity”).

Did it put forward any serious solutions? Did it heck. Ultimately, it was a neat showcase of everything that is wrong with Miliband Labour.

One thing, however, was as clear as a bell. Diane Abbott – as a self-proclaimed “single mother” – really doesn’t rate men.

“Look into the eyes of many of the troubled and often unhealthy young men leaving school early,” she said, “who are at one with anthems of hyper-masculinised music lyrics, and YouTube clips of bullying. Look into the eyes of many of the men sitting in the cubicles of bureaucratic English offices, with a disintegrating family life. Look into the eyes of men sitting in the plush offices of the top City firms, with little of note to show for it but a nice car and often shallow relationships. Do you see clear sense of pride?”

Um, how to answer that one? Talk about petitio principii. What about she looks into the eyes of the millions of sweet men and boys who have successful family lives, who are working hard and well at their jobs, and who are, on the whole, pretty happy? Continue reading on the Telegraph website

Like 10 million other internet users, I found this “Pumpcast News” viral video, produced by the cult American television programme The Tonight Show, both hilarious and inspiring. Hilarious, because – well, just because. And inspiring because of the unalloyed joie de vivre and presence of mind demonstrated by the couple after being caught unawares.

If you haven’t got time to watch the clip (and I heartily recommend that you do), here’s a brief synopsis: Normal petrol station in Burbank, California. A man and wife are about to fill their car with “gas” when the screen on the pump comes alive and a news anchor – played by Tim Stack – starts speaking to them. In exchange for free petrol, they perform impromptu performances of Bon Jovi’s Livin’ On A Prayer, and the Eurythmics’ Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of This). Their cheeriness, good humour, and freedom from inhibition, has captured the hearts of the nation and the world.

Sadly, however – look away now if you’d prefer not to have the dream shattered – it is looking very likely that the thing was a set-up. Two years ago, the Tonight Show aired another Pumpcast News segment. It featured one of the same actors (yes, they are both trained actors). She was at the same petrol station; driving the same car; and was even wearing the same trousers. To watch that video, visit the Smoking Gun website, which broke the story.

When confronted with the footage, the actor, Monifa Sims, suggested that it was mere coincidence. “When it happened again, I said, ‘I cannot believe it!’” she said. She also claimed that neither she nor her husband had watched her 2011 appearance (“I’m not glued to my TV at night”). This seems to be contradicted by posts that she left on her Facebook page at the time, when she wrote “Don’t forget to chck me out on Jay Leno tonight! Let the laughter begin!!!” and, later, “Jay Leno was HILARIOUS!”

In retrospect, it is rather obvious. The two actors react with just a little too much poise and aplomb. And the way the conversation between them and the “anchor” developed, starting with the male actor singing to himself and progressing to both actors performing a duet, seemed a bit, well, scripted. Continue reading on the Telegraph website

Remember Justine Greening’s announcement that Britain’s aid contribution to South Africa is being “cut” in 2015? I recently received a tip-off that in reality our overall aid package to the country will only be marginally reduced. I looked into it, and reported on it for the Sunday Telegraph. The results make sober reading.

Miss Greening’s statements, made just before the local elections, declared that the £19 million aid budget would be ended completely. “I have agreed with my South African counterparts,” she said, “that South Africa is now in a position to fund its own development.”

A Dfid press release gave more details: “UK to end direct financial support to South Africa”, it trumpeted. “The two countries will begin a new relationship based on sharing skills and knowledge, not on development funding.”

No figures were given, however, for the £116.4 million of “regional aid”, to be spent in South Africa between now and March 2014, as well as a further £70.3 million committed for the following year. There are currently no plans to cut this. Staff levels at the newly redesigned British High Commission in Pretoria are not due to be reduced, and there are “no plans to close this office”. Britain also gives aid via multilateral and “global” programmes, which together amount to further tens of millions of pounds.

I located the evidence – DfId’s “South Africa’s Operational Plan 2011-2015”, available to the public on the internet, which shows that, over the period, the country’s regional aid, is at £256 million more than three times the £76 million of direct aid – and confronted Dfid spokesman with it. Continue reading on the Telegraph website

There are few issues more inflamed than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It doesn’t take long before such discussions descend into name-calling and acrimony, and the people on the more extreme ends of the spectrum often shout the loudest and attract disproportionate attention. Nevertheless, it is my firm belief that due to the complexity of the situation – to paraphrase Barack Obama – good people on both sides can disagree.

And, quite obviously, it is important that they do so, freely and vociferously. The principle of freedom of speech, and the pursuit of truth, demands it. This is particularly apt when the discussion is conducted by the brightest brains in science and the arts; the flow of ideas, both related and unrelated to the “situation”, is vital if there is ever going to be a peaceful resolution.

Given this context, it is sad that Stephen Hawking, the eminent physicist, has decided to contribute towards the closing of the debate bysupporting the academic boycott of Israel. It is understandable that he has a pro-Palestinian perspective. Yet this partisan, reductive move has moved him from the realms of objective, concerned observer to an instrument of one particular side against the other. Continue reading on the Telegraph website