We should probably lay our t-shirt design to rest - it looks like the Hamster is now well and truly back:

My thanks to Amy J (who else?) for pointing out this article, which announces Richard Hammond's return to action.

Richard Hammond celebrated his first day of filming for the new series of Top Gear by attending the TG Cars of the Year Awards last Thursday.

On his first night out since his jet car accident in September, Richard was accompanied by co-presenters James May and Jeremy Clarkson, who confirmed that the first episode of the new series is due to air on January 28 at 8pm on BBC2.

Lego's Andy Woodman presented Richard with a scale model of the infamous Vampire jet car and a Lego version of the Top Gear studio set, complete with presenters and, of course, a tiny Stig. This followed Richard's recent announcement that playing with Lego blocks had aided his swift recovery.

[source: Top Gear - 'Hamster attends TG awards']

Here's the Lego studio:

Not sure they've done as well as they could with the chair and sofa in the background, but it'll do.

In other news we'll pop back to the maths story briefly for some stats. Today I discovered that, in its first full day online, the article's two videos were viewed approximately 51,000 times. To give you some idea of scale, the third-placed piece of audio or video in our list - behind the two maths videos - was accessed 31 times. Our servers shifted over 100 gigabytes of maths video to the world that day.

I'm also pleased to see that the comments to my follow-up, while still largely disagreeing with Dr Anderson, have been of an altogether far higher class of literacy and numeracy. Clearly the folk with enough interest in the issue to come back for the follow-up are the ones with something to contribute - and if that contribution is to disagree strongly then that's fine by me (I'm conscious of the opinion, in certain places, that we've somehow already made our minds up that Dr Anderson is 100 per cent correct). Given our local university's refusal to put anybody up to challenge Dr Anderson, it's vital that people have written in.

It's disappointing how hypocritical some people can be when taking time out of their busy schedules to criticise others. I came across the blog of a Guardian science writer (Ben Goldacre) earlier in the week, a man who took it upon himself to write the following:

What is odd is a reporter, editor, producer, newsroom, team, cameraman, soundman, TV channel, web editor, web copy writer, and so on, all thinking it’s a good idea to cover a brilliant new scientific breakthrough whilst clearly knowing nothing about the context. Maths isn’t that hard, you could even make a call to a mathematician about it.

Now if you're going to accuse somebody of being inaccurate and knowing nothing about a subject, it helps to get any references to that person or organisation right. Of our Guardian science writer's list of people who could have stopped this apparently heinous crime against science (for which read: local "and finally" story) being published, very few actually exist:

• There was no cameraman or soundman - our reporter is a video journalist, he does all of that himself.
• I wrote the copy for the web but there was no "web editor" involved (how many people does he think work for us? I'm running the site entirely on my own this week!)
• Of the list of editor, producer, newsroom, team and TV channel, I can grant that an editor and producer are involved in getting the report onto TV (but importantly, not involved in getting it onto the web). But what's this "newsroom" and "team"? How is a "team" different from a "newsroom"? What is the TV channel supposed to do about it? The TV channel is the end product - it's a thing, not a person! BBC1 can't just stop transmitting if it realises it's broadcasting a maths report it doesn't fully agree with, it's a bloody television set!

The point here is that it's all well and good picking us up for not knowing our mathematics inside out - but, if you're a science writer writing about journalists getting things wrong (in your view), you can't get lots of things about the journalism in question wrong. It devalues your entire argument. You could even make a call to a journalist about it.