Commons Leader Harriet Harman has told the BBC she wants the law to be changed to make it illegal to pay for sex.

This subject is always a controversial one, and feminists I have seen debate this issue on both sides of the spectrum. However I personally think that in the current climate, and based on my personal opinion, Harriet Harman's statement about changing the law on prostitution is ill conceived. Let's take a look at the rest of the content of this article...

Me and my girlfriend are running late one day, we're due to go out with friends in town if I remember correctly, and when we got on our local First bus service we are charged £4.20 together for the privilege of being taken about 20 minutes (walk time) down the road. We look at each other with a little bit of shock, it would probably only cost us £6-8 to get a taxi from the luxury of our front door let alone after traipsing all the way up to the main road. We think, if we were a group of 3 or more, why would we get the bus?

In this post:

• The cost of public transport
• The environmental impact
• Politicians need to get involved more

So the BBC strikes again, probably along with a load of other knee jerk media that I don't care to read...but again, the point is that the BBC should have a bit more integrity when it comes to its reporting.

Yesterday I had a double take as I heard news on BBC News 24, right after the Lib Dem leadership result, go on about a rape being reported. "What is this about?" I wondered, "are the BBC trying to highlight the nature of frequency of rape in this country, perhaps taking a stand that no other broadcaster has yet dared on issues such as these?" Of course not, soon after I started listening it appeared the only reason this woman being violated even made the news is because she did so within the immediate vicinity of the Manchester United teams Christmas party.

So I guess I wouldn't really be a liberal blogger unless I commented on the Lib Dem leadership election. Nick Clegg won with 50.6% of the vote, which of course by any count is a very slim victory. It's never a nice position to be on the losing side of a result when the margin in so slim but Chris Huhne must try not to feel too dejected...to me it is clear that those that voted saw two very equal candidates and despite what some people are saying this is only positive for the party.

There is not enough publicity given to consultations, and for as much talking as people like me make on subjects and issues in the blogosphere there aren't enough that actually engage with the processes available and try and do at least a little to influence the outcomes possible. You can see the current Home Office consultations here. If you want to check out a wider range of consultations you can see a linked list of government consultation sites here, just be aware you may need to click around on some sites to find consultations and *some* of the sites will make you want to commit suicide with poor navigation...you've been warned!

Recently it has been suggested that incentive voting needs to be introduced to the UK, a relatively new concept in world democracy, while an article by Peter Singer on Comment is Free talks about how compulsory voting in Australia seems to work. Meanwhile we still use a first past the post system that is lucky to achieve a 60% turnout while neglecting a core of potential voters that desperately need to be tuned in to the political spectrum as they gain new rights, yet are still mollycoddled and kept behind barriers. However with news that the Tory's may win the next election if trends continue, is now the time for a change?

So what do I feel is the situation in the UK, and where do we need to go and why? Lets first take a look at the situation we're currently languishing in...

In this article...

• Why the election systems are bad
• A fair electoral system suggestion
• Voting accessibility
• Voting eligibility
• Compulsory voting
• Voting incentives

Over at "Question That" Ian has written an article discussing and questioning the standards of the BBC when it comes to religion, specifically in one of the hot topics du jour: "The BBC loves to bash Christianity but won't touch Islam with a barge poll" (post-publication edit: initiating article can be found here)

Now this might sound a bit rich coming from me given I have a distinct issue myself with BBC's impartiality, at least when it comes to news broadcasting, and where their ability to be thorough with the facts rarely shows light of day (R.I.P Panorama). However this is one issue which I have to wonder if there is really an issue present at all.

Lets get started with my response to this article...starting with a quote that originally came from the Mail on Sunday, stating that the BBC...

...deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians

I don't want this place to become a haven for lambasting the BBC's poor quality of news reporting, but sometimes I'm just in one of those moods. In fact I'm not sure if the quality is necessarily that bad all told but my yearly head-cold is making me distinctly grouchy

First up in this potential repeat series is local news for me about Bristol's waste problem. Apparently it is getting worse, though no studies have been cited whatsoever as of course with the BBC biased sources of information are perfectly acceptable. What gets me though is that there is no reporting whatsoever into Bristol City Council's inability to deal with the waste problem. On the nights I go out I usually end up sharing a pizza from Pizza Palace, a pizza takeaway holding up the end of a row of about 4 or 5 takeaways, across the road from at least three officially council licensed fast food vendors that seemingly have no obligation to bring waste management solutions along with their trailers. The council is happy to pick up their rent but not the responsibility for picking up the rubbish they haven't made provisions for it seems.

Just a short one to muse about the Bali summit that is being tipped to be close to a deal of kinds involving all the key parties involved.

I think it's absolutely fantastic that we are close to an international consensus on the targets we should be aiming to achieve. That's right, the compromise deal is one reportedly where everyone absolutely understands and agrees to take into account a report that says reduction in emissions of 25-40% would be required to keep global warming within a 2 degree range by 2050. So what if it doesn't specifically mandate some targets on people?

Today Newsbeat on Radio 1 has rekindled the never ending issue about raising the minimum age for consumption of alcohol to 21, staying pretty much in line with previous BBC hosted polls that put the population as being half in favour and half not for the changes. This issue is a particular bugbear of mine, not only with drinking but also with the age of sexual consent and entertainment certification as more than a guideline. As someone who believes in personal liberties I find it discomforting that I should be viewed in the same light as the rest of the population my age and assessed in a generalised manner as to what I can personally deal with; I like to think that kids actually affected by these legal limits feel somewhat the same.

This isn't to say that I don't understand the need for basic levels of protection, to protect rebellious children from themselves if their parents are unable to give them the supervision and guidance they require, however to try and claim that arbitrary age limits on performing certain actions are successful in that task, I feel, is naive and short sighted.

In this article:

• Alcohol limits
• Teen pregnancy and age of consent limits
• Why limits don't make sense