One of the best bits about being an author is the chance to turn up at book festivals (and as a science author, I get a double bite of the cake with science festivals). Last week I was lucky enough to be invited to two very different festivals, each with a very special feel. I've done a couple of the big numbers (Cheltenham and Edinburgh), but for me, small and mid-size festivals like these are far more charming. The first was  Taunton Literary Festival , run in a very friendly, relaxed fashion from Brendon Books, an impressive indie bookshop that mixes new and used books on the shelves with refreshing abandon. As the event was actually in the bookshop, I was expecting a tiny audience, but somehow organiser Lionel Ward managed to cram in a good 60 seats, all of which were filled by an appreciative audience. I've done my  Reality Frame  talk a few times, but never quite so intimately with my audience. I particularly enjoyed a moment when I was waiting to start, sitting on

I had my attention drawn on Facebook to a sad story on the i newspaper's website of a couple who are facing deportation because they misunderstood the over-complex rules for their visa. It is surely essential that a good immigration system has simple and easy to follow rules - this needs sorting. I feel sorry for anyone at the mercy of byzantine immigration rules. However, what also struck me was how carefully phrased the wording of the article was to support a particular viewpoint. Here's the bit in question: With the article's wording, what they did was the apparently harmless 'let the jobs lapse.' But let me rephrase that. The bosses kept on staff for the shortest period necessary to get the visa, then the staff were fired. Two people lost their jobs.  Does that sound as nice and fluffy as 'let the jobs lapse'? It's amazing how the phrasing of the two versions - both arguably factually accurate - can make a lot of differen