The Crappiest Day of the Year

Some people would say I'm not the most sociable person in the world. This may sound odd for someone who voluntarily does stand-up comedy and public speaking about science on a regular basis, but may sound about right for someone who prefers to communicate in text form via electronic mediums. Your interpretation is your own, enjoy it.

But I can see the point of people who would consider me unsociable, as outside of ones where I'm there to perform a specific task or duty, you won't often find me in situations where I would interact with other people in a social situation. It's not that I don't like people, although there are some people I don't like, obviously, and other people I do like. That's normal, isn't it? It's more to do with contexts and environments.

I like to think I'm my own person, I know what I like and what I don't like, and I seek out the former and avoid the latter. And one of the things I really don't like is what I term 'enforced fun'. You won't see me at the big festivals, night clubs, town centres on a Friday, raves, crazy parties or anything like that. Lots of people go to these things because they actively enjoy them, and more power to them. But I don't, so I avoid them. If I did attend these things for some reason, no doubt I'd be considered a killjoy for not enjoying myself like everyone else no doubt would be.

I'm not a killjoy though. I have no problem with other people's joy, certainly not to the extent that I'd want to kill it. I'm not one to commit homicide on an abstract concept, I never signed up for the war on terror for this reason. I just avoid things that I don't. Like most people do, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm indifferent to live music, not brave enough to experiment with narcotics and am actively repulsed by even slightly dirty toilets, so the big festivals would be a massive waste of unhygienic time for me. I don't like dancing, loud noises, overpriced drinks or inhaling the hormonal sweat of strangers, so night clubs have never done it for me. Some people might take genuine pleasure from them and that's cool, but for me there are limited returns on standing in a corner of an overcrowded dark sauna, clutching the only warm lager I'm able/willing to afford while an inebriated stranger bellows in my ear and is still unable to make himself heard (it's never a 'herself', I'm not someone who has ever known the experience of random women talking to him). As fun as that sounds, it get tiresome after 3 hours. And as unreasonable as it sounds, town centres on weekends are out, as I've always had a bizarre aversion to having my face repeatedly smashed into a paving slab by an enraged steroid abuser in a Ben Sherman shirt. I've always been picky like that, so sue me.

I'm being facetious about that last one, of course. Plenty of people go to a city centre on a weekend and never curb stomp anyone. But I was asked to meet up with a comedy mate of mine recently in Cardiff City centre on a Friday night. I never see him usually, so I agreed, and it was quite a bizarre experience for me. I've not been out in central Cardiff on a weekend for many years, and it was refreshing to discover that this wasn't an oversight on my part. I just don't get it, the appeal of getting hideously pissed as quickly as possible with similarly dressed strangers. Nobody got violent while I was there, but then I left before 10.30, so maybe they were waiting for me to go in case I told the police or something. Everyone was giving me a wide birth though, which surprised me. I'm not the most physically intimidating specimen, and with my nerd jacket, glasses and 'keep libel laws out of science' badges, I don't think people saw me as a violent lunatic waiting to lash out. I guess if I was I could be using some reverse psychology thing, but most people didn't seem sober enough to be worried about such unlikely leaps of logic.

It turns out the reason I was making people steer clear of me was how I was looking at them. Whereas most people were looking at each other in one of several familiar, acceptable ways ('potential conquest', 'potential rival', 'alcohol supplier' etc.), I was apparently looking at people as a scientist would look at a rat in a maze; with an unnerving level of calculating scrutiny. Most people, quite fairly, are put off by this. I understand, I didn't mean to do it, I just couldn't help myself from thinking 'why are you doing this? What's your motivation? What pleasure do you obtain from this environment and why?' When I get curious after a few beers, I have trouble preventing myself from adopting my 'amoral scientist' expression, which makes people think I'm on the verge of whipping out a scalpel to cut out their eyeball so I can attach it to the monstrous chimera I'm creating in my attic. Hence, I don't really belong in these places. So I avoid them.

It all boils down to the fact that I really resent being told to enjoy myself when I'm clearly not in a situation where that is likely to happen. When you're in a social gathering context, whatever it may be, there is an expectation to enjoy yourself in the same manner as everyone else, and it's hard to do that against your will, to the point where I actively resent it. Charlie Brooker has a brilliant rant about parties, and I have to agree with him to some extent. Parties are fine if they're just allowed to happen organically, but it's the 'instigators of fun' I can't abide. People who have scheduled games, party pieces, name cards and the like, just to make people talk and engage with each other to enhance the 'fun', rather than just treat people like adults and let them engage with others in a manner which suits them (or, more importantly, allow them to actively avoid engaging with the obvious dickhead that every party is seemingly legally obliged to include). It's probably a holdover from children's parties, but children are more energetic and less adapted to social norms, so games and the like helps them interact and focuses them while the parents can crack open the illicit wine without their dear offspring noticing. But these things don't always translate well to the adult world.

I went to a social once where the fun instigators had spent so long meticulously planning people's enjoyment that they had lost all sense of logic and reason. When you arrived, you were assigned a name badge. On the badge was a famous person or character that matched your gender. Mine said 'Kenickie'. Apparently the aim of this was that you had to seek out the other half of your 'famous couple' amongst the other guests. I was expected to go and find a woman wearing a badge with 'Rizzo' on it, and then… it was never established what I was meant to do then. Talk to her? Re-enact some scenes from Grease? Consummate our fictional relationship? This was never confirmed. And I don't even see how this works as an interaction catalyst. I am not a fan of Grease so my knowledge of it is limited, so exactly what conversational aides can be derived from this approach? Apart from "I see you are the opposite gender to me", or "I see you have been randomly assigned a fiction character that is associated with the one I have been assigned", what exactly is there to be said about this connection? But you could tell the organisers were so concerned with making people interact they didn't give any thought to the rationale beyond this. One guy had a badge that labelled him as 'Jim Corr'. Not sure if he's part of a famous 'couple' per se. I left when I saw a miserable looking girl with a badge that said 'Maxine Carr'. She didn't know where her counterpart was and seemed to be in no hurry to find out. I was him I'd have just turned and left as soon as they gave me my badge, and no doubt he did just that.

Overall, I don't like anyone who would look at you and decide that you aren't happy enough, and decides they must interfere until your enjoyment levels meet their personal standards. I'd wager most people feel this way.

All of this preamble is just a roundabout way of saying that's why I think the 'Happiest day of the year' doesn't get nearly as much press as the 'most depressing day of the year'. Don't get me wrong, it get's far too much (i.e. some), but the most depressing day seems to get a lot more widespread attention than the happy one. Admittedly, I base this purely on the fact that no media sources have ever asked me to comment on it. As opposed to my regular humiliations when getting involved with the most depressing day. Believe me, I've had more than my fair share of dealings with that car-crash of nonsensical pseudoscience. Nobody has ever contacted me from the media to comment on the happiest day. Except for via twitter that is, I had people nudging me (metaphorically) to point out that that yesterday was the happiest day of the year (according to the BBC even! Got no link for that though).

I immediately thought my old nemesis Cliff Arnall had been up to his old tricks (well, trick). But no. He does have another laughable equation to pinpoint the happiest day (apparently coughed up like a media-friendly hairball at the behest of Walls, makers of sausages and ice cream and other things that benefit from people being cheerful enough to have barbecues), but it's in mid-June according to him. So August 6th is the happiest day of the year not according to Cliff Arnall, but Nectar Card. It's always someone shamelessly corporate who comes up with these things, weirdly enough. When the Cochrane collaboration makes a claim like this, then maybe I'll pay attention. However, rather than a nonsensical equation pulled out of the mind-arse of a shameless quack (meaning Cliff Arnall, just to clarify) this claim is, seemingly, based on a slightly more logical principle of just asking people when they're at their happiest. 30% of people say Saturdays, 20% of people say August (I'm really hoping these figures were based on separate questions in order to suggest some sort of useable specificity, but I'm not holding my breath), so overall Saturday in August is the happiest day of the year. Although, last I checked, August had at least 4 Saturdays, so why this one in particular? That's not revealed in the article I could be bothered to read.

It's at least a somewhat logical approach. When are people happiest? Ask them. But there are still myriad problems with this approach. People may say they're happiest in August and on Saturdays, but it doesn't automatically mean that an August Saturday is the happiest day of the year. Someone's favourite foods may be cheesecake and pizza. This does not mean a cheesecake topped pizza is logically their favourite food. Happiness is not a metric measurement that can be added and multiplied in this manner. Happiness is such a nebulous, hard to quantify term (like depression) that any efforts to pin it down to specific date and time like they've done quickly become meaningless.

Also, to suggest that there are predictable regularly occurring external factors that affect people's moods to the extent where the majority of the population are in the same emotional state is, to put it mildly, bollocks. This is seriously underestimating the complexity and variability in the lives, routines and events in the lives of a typical human being. The only figures that can reliably be said to predict depression in large swathes of the population are the ones churned out my the stock markets lately. That, or the viewing figures of Top Gear, but to each their own of course.

I bring this up as, at a recent Winchester Skeptics in the Pub talk I did (and it's a great night if you're nearby, please go to it), a guy in the audience, I believe his name is Ben, suggested you could determine the most depressing day of the year (I do rant about it considerably in my talk) by surveying the self-assessed mood levels of a significantly large group of people over a year. This is probably true, but there are several issues with this that mean it would not produce any useful results.

Firstly, you'd need a subject group big enough to provide decent statistical power and a reasonable cross-section of the population in general. Anything less means you'd have to narrow the focus of your investigation, i.e. The happiest day of the year for University students/pensioners/parents/unemployed/men-who-wear-those-really-low-cut-vests-for-some-undoubtedly-alarming-reason. Then you'd need everyone to agree on and use some universal mood ranking self-assessment scheme. It's no use collating all this data if some people rank their happiness on a scale of 1-10, some use percentages of maximum happiness, others go for a 'not at all - moderately - extremely' ranking of happiness. You can't just mash all these different measurements together and derive some sort of consistent conclusion from it, you'd end up making a complete Arnall of yourself!

Also, you'd need to get your subjects to measure their daily happiness levels for a whole year, not just ask them which day was the most/least happy for them. That would be just as reliable as flat out guesswork, which is what it essentially is. So, after all that, if you have a sufficiently large group of people reporting their happiness levels (or whatever) using the same system of measurement for a whole year, you could run the numbers and, quite possibly, you'd end up with one day that scores higher than all the others (or lower, if you're measuring depression). So you could feasibly say that this particular day is the happiest/most depressing of that year. Whether this day's score would deviate significantly from the norm for the year (or month, or quarter, you'd expect some ups-and-downs during holiday periods or bad weather periods etc. so it might be valid to take them into account), I'm unable to say. But given a large enough group of people, I'd say it would be highly unlikely that enough would feel depressed at the same time to make a dent in the measurements to that extent. But I deliberately said the happiest/most depressing day of THAT year, because that's all it would be.

This method would give you a report of how people felt in response to events and circumstances that happened that year. Any other year, it would be fantastically unlikely that the same things would happen in exactly the same manner. And even if they did, people would be somewhat desensitised to them now, so the ratings would still be different. The idea of a basic equation that can effectively predict all the variables that affect the mood of THE ENTIRE POPULATION is so ridiculous and unbelievable that it was bound to end up in the Daily Mail

Overall, I think the Most Depressing day bullshit seems to have got more media traction than the happiest day bullshit because it offers a get-out clause, as it means the media are saying 'you feel depressed? It's not your fault, it's due to factors beyond your control'. Ironically, I'd wager people are cheered up by this notion as it removes responsibility for a depressing situation and possibly offers hope for improvement. Also ironically, the 'happiest day' is quite annoying, it suggests that if you aren't happy then there's something wrong with you. It's like a fun instigator for the whole population, and we know what I think of that sort.

So yeah, the media or bogus scientists can't tell you which day of the year is the happiest/saddest for you, you can only tell them. And if they ask, tell them to mind their damn business. They won't ask though, they'll just hack your phone if they want to find something out.

And to close, some important points on Cliff Arnall, the main man who seems to have initiated this whole best/worst day debacle we have to go through every pissing year.

• Cliff Arnall is often described as a Cardiff University Psychologist. He is not. Cardiff University has a top-ranking psychology school, it's actually a world leader in the field and often ranks in the top of listings concerned with these things. To be a Cardiff University Psychologist you have to be a member of the psychology school, conduct research there and preferably get it published in reputable journals. This is something some people have done (e.g. Myself), but Cliff Arnall has not. He does apparently have a psychology qualification (a very broad term, but will give him the benefit of a doubt there), and he did teach once (for a few months) at the Cardiff Centre for Lifelong Learning, which is essentially evening classes for adults. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean he's a Cardiff University Psychologist. It's been alleged that the Cardiff University PR department are happy with this state of affairs as it means they get free publicity. Possibly some are, but all the members of the department I know would like to put a bounty on Cliff Arnall's head, so I'm guessing they'd rather he stopped doing this.
  
• Cliff Arnall is apparently not a research psychologist or sociologist as his output would suggest, but a 'life coach'. I'm not a fan of this field. Fair enough if you are, and no doubt there are plenty of life coaches out there who have nothing but good intentions and a desire to help people, but to me it's always seemed a bit self-limiting. The very concept means people in need of a life coach (for whatever reason) are going to end up in a submissive position. They've employed a life coach to begin with, which suggests that they feel they are incapable of making their own decisions, and even if a life coach does everything to boost their confidence and get them back on track, the whole concept can be boiled down to someone vulnerable paying a stranger to tell them what to do in their own daily lives, which is about as personal and invasive as it gets outside of reality TV (not that there's much
  difference). Even if the life coached does end up feeling better, they will always know it was thanks to the interference of a 'superior', a powerful message that they should always obey others and be a good little peon in order to remain happy. Their lives are not really their own, it's external factors that make the difference. Cliff Arnall is a life coach, and he is famous for telling people when they should be happy/sad. Adds up somewhat, now.
  
• Cliff Arnall has 3 children. This was mentioned in the article I read about him, apropos of nothing. I can't see how this fact has any bearing on anything to do with his work, but I'm restating it here in case there's something important I'm missing.
  
• I have never met Cliff Arnall. Odds are he's a perfectly nice guy who's figured out how to make money from a relentlessly shallow and gullible mainstream media. And he's undoubtedly doing a lot better than I am. But his actions have caused me ire and humiliation on several occasions, so I shall continue to lay into him on my own blog until I see a decent reason not to.
  

Lastly, apologies to any regular readers wondering where this blog has gotten do. Had an insanely busy time of it in July. But now I'm fully employed as a Psychiatry tutor, so have a reliable schedule and will hopefully have a lot of interesting brain-related things to talk about in the coming months

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Animal Rights Protesters: Go F**K yourselves! (deliberately provocative title)

The following written tirade is an unedited companion piece for a section I recorded for the latest Pod Delusion . It's something I've been wanting to get off my chest for some time now. Please send all hate mail and death threats to the email address at the bottom.

Animal Rights Protesters: I Protest!

As a doctor of neuroscience who is also a comedian, I've had more than my fair share of bizarre experiences. But I have to say, it’s weird, sitting down to write something that you know in advance will probably cause you a great deal of unnecessary hassle from people who probably will see a few key-words in it and make wild conclusions completely in defiance of the actual views contained within it. But it’s come to the point where I have to get this off my chest. I can’t go on living a lie any more, I have to be me. Here goes…

I am trained and experienced in animal testing, and I am not ashamed of this fact. There, I’m out.

Recent events have compelled me to make this admission. Firstly, there is increasing speculation over an animal rights campaign and protest targeted at my former workplace. Good, hard-working people who have done nothing wrong, who are actively trying to further scientific and medical understanding, are now having to undergo extra security checks and procedures as their personal safety is under threat. Also, there was the recent news story about the protesters jailed for their hate campaign targeting Huntington Life Sciences. Oddly, so familiar is this occurrence that a quick google search brought an almost identical story from over a year ago.

I need to make several things clear first and foremost. Firstly, I have no problem with people being opposed to animal testing on moral grounds. I disagree with the majority of arguments put forward to defend this position, but the conclusion that 'innocent creatures suffering is bad' is a very hard one to disagree with, and I won't attempt to do so. Also, to me there is something quite inspiring and, ironically, uniquely human about opposing members of your own species on behalf of another. You don’t get that anywhere else, I’ve yet to see Lions taking on other lions in order to defend the grasshoppers, and I doubt I ever will outside the realm of a CGI summer kids movie. Similarly, any vegetarians get my grudging respect, as I doubt I could ever be one, not least because my father, a borderline carnivore, would likely disown me.

I don't get vegans, though. Bonkers, the lot of them.

My main beef (yes I said beef, deal with it) is with the violent protesters and campaigners who make the lives of scientists a lot harder than they need to be. To these people, on behalf of myself and my fellow researchers, I'd like to make the following statement;

Fuck you! Fuck you and the tofu-based gluten free horse you rode in on!

Now, while they’ve gone off in a frothy rage to find out where my deceased relatives are buried or to construct some sort of letter bomb, here’s why I felt it necessary to say that.

I want to make it clear that Huntington’s life sciences did terrible things to animals all those years ago, nobody is disputing that. If they are, they need to be escorted to the nearest padded room as soon as possible. I was told during my training that the Huntington's incident was dealt with severely by the relevant authorities, the perpetrators were punished and disgraced, and the whole infrastructure of the institution was changed to ensure this never happened there again.

Whether you trust this assertion or not is another matter, I can certainly see how you could argue that the source of the claim wouldn't be impartial, given the context of it being in an animal experiment training session. HLS is also a largely commercial body, so exactly how much control the Home Office would have regarding their infrastructure is questionable. But even bearing that in mind, the argument that the awful crimes which were committed at Huntington's means all animal research is evil and must be stopped is blatantly ridiculous. Using that logic, we should imprison all GP's for life because of Harold Shipman's crimes. It's the only way to be sure, obviously...

As a scientist, I feel I have the insight to set a few things straight. We're constantly discouraged from doing this, purely because of the possible ramifications of protesters finding out and targeting us. For the safety of our colleagues and those we work with, we have to behave as if we are guilty of the things we're accused of, and skulk about in order to avoid detection. Those who don't risk being disciplined by their superiors.

Well I'm presently unemployed, so the only one I have to answer to is my conscience, and that has about as much say over what I do as a Lib Dem MP in the cabinet.

Firstly, I've worked in animal labs, and I've yet to meet anyone who, despite the accusations and implications, actually enjoys animal experimentation. Pretty much everyone who does it manages to develop a necessary sense of detachment, but it's never easy. As I always strive to point out, the vast majority of scientists are actually people, and we don't like psychopaths or sadists any more than the next person.

Even if you don't believe that, if you think that all animal researchers do it for the sick thrill of hurting furry creatures due to some trauma experienced while watching Return of the Jedi, or you believe that all scientists are dead-eyed emotionless robots who care for nothing but their precious data, look at the practicalities. A suffering animal is, scientifically, pretty much useless in most cases. Pain or discomfort have a complex physical, biological basis, so an animal in distress is going to provide unreliable results and throw off the data obtained in any experiment that studies anything other than pain. Granted, the study of pain is medically very important, so is ongoing and uses animal subjects. Whether you believe this is acceptable or not is up to you, but keep it in mind next time you take an analgesic for a slight headache. But by and large, the logic of scientific research means it's essential that animal subjects experience as little discomfort as possible.

People opposed to animal testing often shout about how we should use alternatives. What alternatives? Where there's an option, we use it. Why wouldn't we? Even if you still subscribe to the emotionless robotic data monger view of scientists, animal testing is a pain in the arse. If your research requires animal subjects, you spend the majority of your time maintaining and caring for the animals, making sure they're healthy and well, and the research often seems like an afterthought. Cleaning, feeding, weighing, record keeping, it all must be done to the highest standards as at any moment a Home Office inspector could turn up and, if the animals seem to be cared for imperfectly, will shut the entire place down. And they do this often. Lab animals have cushier lifestyles than most domestic pets, as government inspectors are unlikely to turn up and evict you from your house if you don't clean your hamsters cage regularly enough.

Believe me, if there was an effective substitute that offered the same complexity and sophistication offered by a living organism, we'd be using it. Perhaps some futuristic Quantum computer will eventually fulfil this function? I'm confident that all scientists would jump at the chance to use something like that, we bloody love new gadgets (I bet it'll have a bloody glowing apple logo on the side too, knowing my luck). Of course, something like that would be fantastically expensive at first, so we'd still be stuck using animals unless science research funding gets a massive increase. In that event, the protesters would start protesting those who are responsible for not funding science sufficiently, right? Right...? No, probably not.

Undeniably, Britain loves its animals, more so than most other countries. We have possibly the most strict and tightly regulated animal welfare laws in the world, even the NSPCC was founded long after the RSPCA (the first child cruelty case was actually brought by the RSPCA after a child was successfully classified as 'a small animal'). Let's not forget that very recently a cat placed in a bin received more sympathy than the masses of potentially innocent people killed in the floods in Pakistan. I wonder if I'm alone in thinking this was somewhat worrying? For as much as I love animals myself, I think people should come first. Hundreds of animal subjects being sacrificed to obtain information that could alleviate the suffering of thousands or millions of humans is, I think, a fair trade. A bit Darwinian of me perhaps, and there are certainly many people who I'd rank as less important than your typical cockroach, but overall I stand by it.

Apparently, this attitude makes me a torturer and murderer. I have been called both these things, totally seriously. Often by other comedians, who seemingly have no issues with using victims of rape and paedophilia to get cheap laughs, or with using the end product of the blood-drenched cocaine trade. No, I'm the bastard for doing research to enhance society's understanding of how things work.

It does surprise me how animal testing seems to skip all the logical or rational checks people normally use when judging something and go straight for the moral outrage. Even many skeptics have expressed a moral opposition to animal testing. People who claim to believe in evidence and rationality above all else, who condemn pseudoscience, alternative medicine and religious fundamentalism on the grounds they have no basis in evidence and can lead to innocent people coming to harm, they think the exact opposite when it comes to animal testing. We can't win.

It's amazing how seemingly rational people can be so morally outraged by it. A fellow PhD student, a Neuroscientist like myself (a field which wouldn't exist without animal testing), was fundamentally opposed to it, and took every opportunity to attack me over it. Then she found she had a rat in her flat and immediately called the council to deal with it. When I challenged her over this, about why me killing animals for science is wrong but her doing for her own piece of mind it is fine, she was shocked. She actually said "The council won't kill it will they? I thought they'd re-house it". I'd genuinely like to know if there are any families out there willing to adopt a filthy sewer rat as a pet, really I would.

Whenever I see the protesters, so many questions come to mind that I'd really like to have answered.

Why do all the posters and banners feature dogs, monkeys or the cute mammals? The vast majority, 90% plus, of experiments on mammals are performed on rodents, rats and mice. Admittedly, I think mice are little furry balls of evil, but where's the rats poster campaign? Or don't vermin 'suffer' in the same way as the more popular creatures? And that's just the mammals, why do you ignore all the others? The pigeons, the fish, the newts? What about poor Drosophilia? The fruit fly that's had its entire genome mangled many times in the name of science? It seems that unless it's furry and friendly, they don't give a shit these animal rights protesters. It's Animal rights only for the select few, apparently. How very right wing. Almost Catholic-like in their bias for creatures they deem 'worthy'.

On a similar matter, how come only scientists trying to make valuable discoveries are protested against? Why not protest Rentokil or other companies, which profit from the killing of innocent animals in the name of people's convenience? One argument is that vermin and infestations can carry diseases so exterminators are necessary. But medical research is not? So killing animals is OK if it benefits people's health, but not if it benefits people's health. I see. Except that I don't.

Why are battery farms and slaughterhouses generally let off the hook? Places where animals suffer in far greater numbers and in far less humane conditions that laboratories so that people can have greater choice in their cuisine?

Why not protest tanneries, where animals are killed so that people have nice things to wear or durable wallets? Why not protest the companies that cut down trees, undoubtedly traumatising or killing the many animals that live in them or depend on them in the process, in order to make paper for you to use to construct banners calling me and my sort a pack of bastards?

These things are apparently essential or at the very least acceptable, whereas medical research is not. I don't know who makes these decisions, but I'd like to see the method they use. I'm guessing a blindfold and a dartboard.

Using misinformation and intimidation to attack and persecute innocent people in order to defend a non-sentient organism in a manner which is in-keeping with their sense of moral superiority is usually the domain of pro-life and anti-abortion campaigners. Far be it from me to draw parallels between them and animal rights protesters, but they're there is you want to look.

Someone once asked me 'what gives us the right to decide how and when an animal dies?' I genuinely don't know, nor do I know if we can be said to have the right to anything we do as a species. But we've been doing it for millions of years, and still are on a massive scale, and for far less noble reasons than in the name of scientific discovery and the alleviating of the suffering of others.

No animals were harmed in the making of this report, although admittedly a few straw-men got a serious kicking.

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy