In the short term Dawkins is wrong about Broad walking. Not walking is now the default behavour in cricket so Broad wasn’t doing anything abnormal and the Australians would certinly have done just the same. No complaints from them I noticed when Trott was unfairly given out earlier in the innings. The rule is that the umpire’s decision stands. If that’s the rule it’s the rule. Also not walking balances up to some extent all those times when you are unfailry given out so you could say it’s actually making things fairer. But of course Dawkins is really right. In a hideously utilitarian world cricket gives us opportunities to rise above opportunism and it is of great advantage to us all when they are taken.