Here again I find myself in a situation with a few subjects I want to touch on but not really wanting to devote entire posts to each of them at this time. So this time the three subjects are BBC2's White season, your DNA and how little you need to do to give the police reason to put it on a database, and a rather sickening situation of trying to send an Iranian kid back to Iran where he is almost certain to be executed.

When is a Labour MP not a labour MP? When they're government ministers it seems, when they have to roll out Tory-esque policies every day to seemingly stay in the news. The drivel that pours out of our central leadership today being that Caroline Flint, housing minister, suggests that those not seeking employment should be evicted from council homes. Following in the vein of Hazel Blears she wants to introduce yet more contracts, the theme of this government seemingly being to legally enshrine the British public in to some kind of duty to the state (do they enjoy being called Stalinist I wonder?).

This unbelievable story broke over a week ago now, but I decided to hold off on it because perhaps staggering this kind of thing will alert more people that care about cycle paths about what is going on. In short the local council, the illustriously moronic Bristol City Council, have decided that not only do they need to create a "rapid transport" scheme to replace the trams that they voted against considering in 2004. This has obviously annoyed no small number of people since the plan is to turn a stretch of the Bath to Bristol rail path in to a bus route.

To the "hard working" yet easily frustrated representative of my constituency,

I would, in turn, like to thank you for representing your constituency in parliament, but have yet to see the evidence. Apparently my taxes go towards paying for you to groan and shout in the house of commons, to feed the prime minister an easy question to boost his performance at PMQ's or playing the partisan blame game. When you debate it is not to get to the best solution but to deride it for not being your party's solution, and when you vote it's because of what a handful of politicians think rather than what thousands of your constituents think.

Jo over at Jo's Jottings has posted 12 reasons for why she hates ITV. Taking it in the spirit it was delivered I feel that poor old ITV, which has greatly improved of late, needs someone to fight it's corner a little.

1. When sitting down to watch a film I know that there will be wondrous period that will come about where I can go to the loo, or open a bottle of wine, without missing any of the action
2. While adverts can be awful and generally are, it is the gems such as "Belly's gonna get ya!" and the Cadbury's gorilla that make it all worthwhile.
3. At the risk of coming off all sexist, Coronation Street's simple and down to earth babes rather than Eastender's chav's.
4. Stephen Fry in Kingdom, 'nuff said
5. It may not be as intelligent, though I'd question how "intelligent" the beeb is these days, but without it we wouldn't be getting American TV show amazing-ness on our screen.
6. Gus Honeybun
7. They use their bandwidth for "+1" channels to help us arrange prime time viewing rather than repetative and poor quality 24 hour news "reporting"
8. No ITV London in your area? Surely this is a small inconvenience to be able to watch Torville and Dean each week in the winter!
9. Primeval, Kingdom, Friday Night Lights, Smallville, and who could forget Sharpe? Plenty of drama on ITV and classic drama *started* on ITV.
10. ITV knows its cult, Quantum Leap recently stopped showing, Quincy, Cagney and Lacey and Jeeves and Wooster? ITV is the new Student doss channel!
11. It's the perfect antithesis to the much more intelligent Channel 4 one channel away.
12. It actually shows sport that you wouldn't be able to watch in your Local.

Yesterday came the remarkable story of two twins, separated at birth for adoption, yet somehow managed to find each other to fall in love and get married. It would be an amazing tale if not for the fact they are genetically related and living in an age where "incest" is a taboo and illegal regardless of the context. With a court annulling their marriage there is no word (rightfully) on what the two have gone on to do, whether they have been shamed through the existence of the taboo, whether they have been able to overcome the past and forge a new sibling relationship or if indeed they still undertake in their love for one another in a less obvious manner.

The issue takes pace, however when political discussions start to take place that could have a major effect the adoption and reproductive services of this country. Lord Alton, an independent lord, had the following to say...

In bizarre news released today it has been reported that a man has won $750,000 in damages because of "spousal theft". The man, Mr Valentine (seriously, you couldn't make this up could you?), claimed under a law only present in seven states in the US that his wife was stolen from him by one Mr Fitch. Both the local and state supreme court judged in favour of the claimant and left Mr Fitch only one option, to go to the US Supreme court and appeal there against a decision that wouldn't have taken place in the vast majority of the rest of the country. The supreme court refused to listen to his request.

Only three weeks after the shocking story of a young woman placed in a cell with convicted males, preceding being raped relentlessly, another story you don't really expect to some out of some of the more "Christian" nations pops up in the Guardian.

A judge in Australia was facing calls to step down yesterday after she failed to jail nine males who admitted gang-raping a 10-year-old girl in an Aboriginal community in 2005, saying the victim "probably agreed" to have sex with them.