This post is just a bit of filler while I attend the Liberal Conspiracy / Guardian event in London today, but is to highlight two stories that have some serious relevance to homosexual rights in this country. The first is regarding the Heinz advert that has been pulled by the company following 200 homophobic complaints about the innocuous contents. The second is the much more dangerous statement by Jacqui Smith that has the audacity to try and tell homosexuals to tone down their behaviour so as to not get caught by the homophobic Iranian officials.

Brown loves the idea, Jacqui Smith seems to have been delivered to blight us on this planet solely because of her affinity to ideas like 42 days, and a policeman that thinks it is ok to abandon innocent until proven guilty because of some pictures of white powder is ready to back it to the hilt. But in reality, who else is there?

As usual my Thursday spot on Casting the net is complete and it's time to share, share, share. I'm busy with work currently but I aim to put a couple of posts on over the next couple of days regarding Boris Johnson and his half a £million "transition team", as well as some more comments on the latest issues of the day!

Remember to check out the following links that didn't quite make it in to my review, or go ahead and click continue reading below to see the full list posted up on Liberal Conspiracy.

Comment is free - Jeremy is very critical of Cameron and two faced Tories. A scathing attack worth a read.
Three line whip - A brief explaination of the history of the word "crap" in parliament.
Schneider Home - Is it bad for Labour? Well to use an oft used Lib Dem argument, it's not as bad as those in Germany.
Kerron Cross - It's always good to know that no matter what the politics of the day, someone is looking for your style mistakes!

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.

A-policy-a-day Smith is up again today with something a little more palatable, though ultimately pointless. Lots of arguments are being had as I write in the House of Commons over a new view on immigration, but it seems to be about petty semantics. Ultimately it puts some more requirements on those wishing to move to the UK, charges them a little bit more money to irrelevant ends, and extends the current 5 year period before British citizenship is attained to 6.

From my point of view what is being proposed is disappointing in that it is yet another policy that pretty much does nothing to benefit the country while making life more tough for immigrants, and seemingly all in the aim of sounding tough on another issue.

While I am on the theme already tonight of BBC shoddy reporting (seems to occur like buses) I also would like to highlight this article about birth rates in the UK and the contribution of immigrants to this. The BBC reports there has been a 77% increase in the birthrate of children to foreign born mothers. It is a shame that amongst all of this reporting, however, has been on the level of impact this increase has rather than why the impact is so much of a problem.

I have to ask though what the big deal is. Higher birth rate has to in turn convey some benefits to long term economy. It has long been said that younger populations help maintain a growth economy and higher birthrates are the only way to achieve this, in fact without migrants having babies we would be falling in to a predicted slump economically as our population grows older.

I am, when all is said and done, a bit of a nerd when it comes to analysing things and trying to predict outcomes. While I truly believe that nationally the UK blog scene should be concentrating on prevailing UK political issues I just can't come to drop this kind of opportunity to geek out. So without further ado, with New Hampshire exit poll results at the ready, I want to look in to who I believe is going to win depending on a few key scenario differences at the next stage of the race towards becoming the democratic candidate for president. Just to note, I would write about the Republicans too but in all honesty that group of people just really irk me rather than make me passionate about politics, so it is probably best I keep avoiding analysing them!

Over in the Observer a very good piece has been written about the build up to the next state. The race is moving South, and so while the middle of America has now been initially weighed up and also the North, the South is yet to make its views known. Given the propensity for religion the more south you go in the US, as well as the well known history about race relations in the south vs the north, it is clear that if anywhere was going to differ from what we've seen already it would be South Carolina that would start to show those differences. Is the race issue going to be where the battle is won and lost? Will religious rhetoric come out in more force?

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!