You've thought about it, you've talked about it, you may have even dreamt about it, now here it is in the flesh. I present for your culinary pleasure the egg that Cadbury should be making - the giant, full-size Creme Egg.

Following Jamie Oliver's calendar a couple of years ago comes part II of 'there's no way they didn't notice that' or 'designers having fun'.



Being modelled by Big Baldy Roy from Danny Baker's Internet Treehouse is a Morrison's multi-pack of Cheesy Puffs. Schoolboy humour at its best.

I'm no Charles Darwin or Richard Dawkins, I don't even have any qualifications in biology, but there's a part of evolution that I've never seen properly explained. When I was at school, the teaching of evolution went something like this:

'Life started as single cell amoebas. Over millions of years these developed into multi-cell organisms, which in turn evolved into invertebrates.' Ok, fine so far, seems plausible. 'These invertebrates then gradually evolved into fish-like vertebrates. After another few million years fish began crawling out of the sea, using their fins as legs, to become amphibious...' Whoa, hang on there, rewind a second, fish began crawling out of the sea?

My understanding of evolution is that, through natural selection over many thousands of generations, genetic mutations that are beneficial to the species become dominant. The 'using their fins as legs' part I can accept, I can imagine that they were crawling on the sea bed well before they moved to land, it's how they breathed that I don't get.

What type of freak genetic mutation is it that suddenly gives a fish the ability to breathe in water and in air? You can either breathe in air or you can't, there's no in between, so it's a huge leap.

I'm sure that there's a very good explanation, it's just I haven't been able to find it. Everything I've read on the subject explains the transition from fins to legs, not the change in breathing mechanism. From single-cell amoebas to vertibrates I'm fine with, and likewise from land-crawling 'fish' to mammals and birds, it's just the bit in between I get stuck on. And in case you're wondering, this isn't an argument for creationism, it's questioning the current evolution teachings.

Can I just say absolutely unbefuckinglievable. I can only assume that Stephen Green and his disciples (as that's surely how he sees himself) have never had someone they know suffer and die from cancer. In some ways they've done us all a favour by doing this - perhaps now everyone but the most fundamental Christians will realise how loathsome this organisation is.

I would urge you to drop an email to Maggie's Centres to express your support for them to accept the donation, and to contact Stephen Green at either this email address or on 01994 484 545, to express your disgust.

Until yesterday I wasn't sure what I thought about the ban - a centuries old tradition versus killing foxes with dogs. Then last night I saw a picture of a member of a hunt in tears with blood on her face after being hit by a hunt saboteur and thought, 'that's exactly what the fox goes through'. So how about a comprimise? The hunts are allowed to go ahead as long as the saboteurs are allowed free reign to attack the hunters. Fair?

West Kent Hunt was what he was trying to say, but that wasn't quite what came out. Warning, contains strong language.