I’ve been taking the bus for a few months now, and there are one or two unwritten rules that I have come across. Obviously, by “one or two”, I do of course mean ten:

1. The only bus stop the bus driver will know with any certainty is the one called “City Centre”. Whether the driver will know the locations “Top of the Hill”, “The Supermarket”, and “Just Past Thompson Road” is indirectly proportional to their level of social skills.
2. The number of seats available on the bus when you get on is indirectly proportional to the number of old ladies who will get on at a bus stop after yours, forcing you to stand up.
3. It doesn’t matter how fit or agile you may be, it is impossible to maintain your balance if you are stood up when the bus starts or stops.
4. Pushchairs travel in pairs.
5. It is mandatory for a passenger on the bus to be listening to an album probably called “Sounds of the Apocalypse”.
6. It doesn’t matter how well-behaved a child passenger may be, they will eventually get on your nerves.
7. If you are forced to sit next to someone you don’t know, they will greet you with a look that is the combination of resignation and pure hatred.
8. The back seat is not for you.
9. It doesn’t matter how horrendous the driving may be, you will always thank the bus driver upon exiting.
10. At some point during your journey, you will suddenly notice how intricate the design on the seat cushions are.

And, although it isn’t a rule as such, I would like to point out that “Megarider” is a silly name for a bus ticket.

In October 2008, I moved to my current location somewhere around Cambridgeshire. I receive a newsletter once a month from the friendly village Resident’s Association. Inside this newsletter there are letters to the editor printed on the first two pages.

If I was to get my only news from these letters, this is the knowledge I would have:

• The District Council is pure evil. It is run by thieving, immoral, money-grabbers that do not think twice about any decision they make – especially in relation to planning permission or road conditions.
• The same is true for the Parish Council.
• The worst thing that could ever happen in a village is for a Barbers to be set-up.
• The second worst thing that could happen in a village is for the Barbers to leave.
• Lorry drivers are unable to correctly judge the size of their vehicle, are some of the worst drivers in the country, and routinely and deliberately hinder the lives of as many people as possible by parking their vehicle.
• Two wind turbines equals a Wind Farm.
• It is not necessary to know all the facts as long as you make up for it with adjectives.
• People do not shop at Tesco’s, but Tesco’s likes to ruin people’s livelihoods.
• The police can’t be trusted.
• If a shop builds a wind turbine, the village can legally change its name to that of the shop.
• People only like to get angry about things after they have happened.
• Life is never boring.

I am behaving more like Gerald than normal today. I am following all the other sheep and joining Twitter.

If you would like to know about all the exciting things I get up to, and all the incredible thoughts I have, then please follow me. I currently have very few followers, and that makes me feel a little as though I am talking to myself – so, no change there then.

Hopefully, I will be able to get a new Gerald up soon. Still working out how much being employed interferes with my normal daily routine.

I’m going to start this post by going off on a tangent.

In 2005 an economist, Steven Levitt, published a book called Freakonomics. It’s a book that attempts to explain the reasons behind everyday occurances: The socioeconomic patterns of naming children, the economics of drug dealing, and the apparent cheating that takes place in sumo wrestling tournaments. However, the most famous theory revolves around the apparent reduction in crime that took place in the USA in the 1980s and 90s.

Levitt posited the idea that crime reduced as a result of the Roe vs. Wade court decision to legalise abortion in 1973. Allegedly the people most likely to want an abortion are those who live in low socioeconomic areas – and thus those most likely to turn to crime. Therefore, as a result of the increase in abortions, there was a decrease in crime. Levitt’s theory is definitely very satisfying – it makes a sort of logical sense that pleases me. Sadly, there has been quite a lot of evidence now that suggests the idea is not quite so plausible. Nevertheless, it has allowed the debate to continue – and if there is something we all like, it’s something to argue about.

And if there is one thing we don’t like, it’s people unfairly bringing an end to a debate – and thus bring about a debate on a completely different topic.

Jeni Barnett, radio present for LBC, recently broadcast a segment on a show about why she didn’t give the MMR vaccine to her child, and invited other people who had done the same to ring in with their opinions.

This topic is, of course, a debate in itself. The fact that this phone-in happened quite recently, does somewhat seem to ignore the most recent research that suggests that there is nothing to worry about – not to mention the apparent rise in measles outbreaks that seem to be occurring as a result. So, it isn’t surprising that some people were surprised by the members of the public who were still against the vaccination. One of these was Ben Goldacre – author of Bad Science.

Ben Goldacre has a thing against those who ignore areas of science in order to emphasize their own point. Fair enough. As a result of this, he had a thing against Ms. Barnett’s broadcast, posted the relevant segment of her show on his blog, and wrote this:

It is my view that in this extended broadcast Jeni exemplifies every single canard ever uttered by the antivaccination movement.

I invite you to document the rest below (the bit about empirical experience is particularly enjoyable) and maybe we can get the full list of canards together for the definitive numbers set of Bad Science Bingo. In fact, if there is an anti-vaxxer canard in existence which is not in this broadcast, I want to know about it, signed copy of some book for the best one.

Ms. Barnett had this to say about Mr. Goldacre’s response (I don’t know why I have suddenly gone so formal):

I am interested in the debate not a witch hunt.

Should anybody from BAD SCIENCE read this I urge you to continue the debate, and if it gets too heated there is always the option of turning me off.

Brilliant! Another argument debate! However, something strange then happened. Mr. Goldacre received a note from Ms. Barnett’s lawyers demanding that he took down the offending clip from his blog.

It’s probably important to point out that, as the Wardman Wire points out, the clip was less than 25% of the total show length, and thus did not infringe on any copyright rules. So, the only possible theory could be that, although Jeni Barnett invited debate, she did not want the sort of debate that put her in a bad light. Instead, she probably wanted the sort of debate that happens as a result of missed information, deception, and ignorance.

Fair enough.

Here’s Gerald: