Slashdot Mirror

https://www.theyworkforyou.com...

I have written to my MP about this. She isn't the best MP in Parliament (known locally as the Chocolate Teapot, as in "as useful as a..."). But she is a scientist, and what the NCA have done is blatant disregard for government policy. I believe she has the ear of some influential people. With any luck she can cause the NCA some pain.

I would encourage any and all Brits to use They Work For You http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ - an easy and quick way to write to your MP, and say what you think (even if you disagree).

By strange coincidence, a politician who wants ISPs to pay for the job the film and music industry should do if they want, is paid by: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/...

Name of donor: Motion Picture Licensing Co Ltd
and
Name of donor: CASBAA (Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia)

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/...

what a complete and utter waste of democracy this man is.

In the UK, we have TheyWorkForYou, which is developed by mySociety, a charity that exists to provide useful tools for voters. They also run a few related sites, including WriteToThem, which provides an easy way of identifying and contacting your elected representatives.

If you want to improve the state of your government, then donating to an organisation like them is probably a much better idea than giving the money to any party.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ will find you a page where you can mail your MP and they will answer. I complained to my MP about the police use of Terror laws to detain David Miranda, and I know it got to him as he replied. He did reply saying it was a police matter and nothing to do with Parliament, but hell, it struck home! Power to the People ..

The UK requires all bills to be debated, at least once in each chamber. Here is the debate that followed the second reading, I don't know exactly what you mean by closed doors or public debate.

UK Bloggers Could Face Libel Fines Unless Registered As Press

Even publishers who have registered could face exemplary fines; it is just a little higher standard. Look at the legislation;

(2) Exemplary damages may not be awarded against the defendant in respect of the claim if the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the material time.

(3) But the court may disregard subsection (2) if—

(a) the approved regulator imposed a penalty on the defendant in respect of the defendant’s conduct or decided not to do so,

(b) the court considers, in light of the information available to the approved regulator when imposing the penalty or deciding not to impose one, that the regulator was manifestly irrational in imposing the penalty or deciding not to impose one, and

(c) the court is satisfied that, but for subsection (2), it would have made an award of exemplary damages under this section against the defendant.

Subsection 3 basically negates most "protection" from exemplary damages by registered publishers. Subsection 2 states exemplary damages can not be awarded against a registered publisher but subsection 3 shows how the court can disregard Subsection 2. Yes it is harder to impose exemplary damages but it still can happen. The other thing that is missing from this whole discussion is that the regulator can impose damages too that could be as much as the exemplary damages.

Basically what subsection 2 and 3 state is that publishers should be fined by their regulators and not the court unless the court believed the regulator was "manifestly irrational". This protects publishers who register with a regulator from being fined twice except under extraordinary circumstances.

The other thing they ignore is Clause 29 which defines what a "relevant publisher" is.

(1) In sections [Awards of exemplary damages] to [Awards of costs], “relevant publisher” means a person who, in the course of a business (whether or not carried on with a view to profit), publishes news-related material—
(a) which is written by different authors, and
(b) which is to any extent subject to editorial control.

A blogger is usually a single person and there is no editorial control so most bloggers would not be a relevant publisher. By the way there is a clause that protects web sites as well.

(3) A person who is the operator of a website is not to be taken as having editorial or equivalent responsibility for the decision to publish any material on the site, or for content of the material, if the person did not post the material on the site.
(4) The fact that the operator of the website may moderate statements posted on it by others does not matter for the purposes of subsection (3).

That clause also stipulates a list of exempt publishers under Schedule 5.

Special interest titles

4 A person who publishes a title that—

(a) relates to a particular pastime, hobby, trade, business, industry or profession, and
(b) only contains news-related material on an incidental basis that is relevant to the main content of the title.

I bet most bloggers would fall in this category.

What clause 21A sets forth are the circumstances under which a relevant publisher can be charges exemplary damages by the courts. Under Clause 29 and Schedule 5 it would be very difficult to categorizes a blogger as a relevant publisher. This is yet another tempest in a teapot brought on by reporting that only shows the salacious part of a story.

UK Bloggers Could Face Libel Fines Unless Registered As Press

Even publishers who have registered could face exemplary fines; it is just a little higher standard. Look at the legislation;

(2) Exemplary damages may not be awarded against the defendant in respect of the claim if the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the material time.

(3) But the court may disregard subsection (2) if—

(a) the approved regulator imposed a penalty on the defendant in respect of the defendant’s conduct or decided not to do so,

(b) the court considers, in light of the information available to the approved regulator when imposing the penalty or deciding not to impose one, that the regulator was manifestly irrational in imposing the penalty or deciding not to impose one, and

(c) the court is satisfied that, but for subsection (2), it would have made an award of exemplary damages under this section against the defendant.

Subsection 3 basically negates most "protection" from exemplary damages by registered publishers. Subsection 2 states exemplary damages can not be awarded against a registered publisher but subsection 3 shows how the court can disregard Subsection 2. Yes it is harder to impose exemplary damages but it still can happen. The other thing that is missing from this whole discussion is that the regulator can impose damages too that could be as much as the exemplary damages.

Basically what subsection 2 and 3 state is that publishers should be fined by their regulators and not the court unless the court believed the regulator was "manifestly irrational". This protects publishers who register with a regulator from being fined twice except under extraordinary circumstances.

The other thing they ignore is Clause 29 which defines what a "relevant publisher" is.

(1) In sections [Awards of exemplary damages] to [Awards of costs], “relevant publisher” means a person who, in the course of a business (whether or not carried on with a view to profit), publishes news-related material—
(a) which is written by different authors, and
(b) which is to any extent subject to editorial control.

A blogger is usually a single person and there is no editorial control so most bloggers would not be a relevant publisher. By the way there is a clause that protects web sites as well.

(3) A person who is the operator of a website is not to be taken as having editorial or equivalent responsibility for the decision to publish any material on the site, or for content of the material, if the person did not post the material on the site.
(4) The fact that the operator of the website may moderate statements posted on it by others does not matter for the purposes of subsection (3).

That clause also stipulates a list of exempt publishers under Schedule 5.

Special interest titles

4 A person who publishes a title that—

(a) relates to a particular pastime, hobby, trade, business, industry or profession, and
(b) only contains news-related material on an incidental basis that is relevant to the main content of the title.

I bet most bloggers would fall in this category.

What clause 21A sets forth are the circumstances under which a relevant publisher can be charges exemplary damages by the courts. Under Clause 29 and Schedule 5 it would be very difficult to categorizes a blogger as a relevant publisher. This is yet another tempest in a teapot brought on by reporting that only shows the salacious part of a story.

UK Bloggers Could Face Libel Fines Unless Registered As Press

Even publishers who have registered could face exemplary fines; it is just a little higher standard. Look at the legislation;

(2) Exemplary damages may not be awarded against the defendant in respect of the claim if the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the material time.

(3) But the court may disregard subsection (2) if—

(a) the approved regulator imposed a penalty on the defendant in respect of the defendant’s conduct or decided not to do so,

(b) the court considers, in light of the information available to the approved regulator when imposing the penalty or deciding not to impose one, that the regulator was manifestly irrational in imposing the penalty or deciding not to impose one, and

(c) the court is satisfied that, but for subsection (2), it would have made an award of exemplary damages under this section against the defendant.

Subsection 3 basically negates most "protection" from exemplary damages by registered publishers. Subsection 2 states exemplary damages can not be awarded against a registered publisher but subsection 3 shows how the court can disregard Subsection 2. Yes it is harder to impose exemplary damages but it still can happen. The other thing that is missing from this whole discussion is that the regulator can impose damages too that could be as much as the exemplary damages.

Basically what subsection 2 and 3 state is that publishers should be fined by their regulators and not the court unless the court believed the regulator was "manifestly irrational". This protects publishers who register with a regulator from being fined twice except under extraordinary circumstances.

The other thing they ignore is Clause 29 which defines what a "relevant publisher" is.

(1) In sections [Awards of exemplary damages] to [Awards of costs], “relevant publisher” means a person who, in the course of a business (whether or not carried on with a view to profit), publishes news-related material—
(a) which is written by different authors, and
(b) which is to any extent subject to editorial control.

A blogger is usually a single person and there is no editorial control so most bloggers would not be a relevant publisher. By the way there is a clause that protects web sites as well.

(3) A person who is the operator of a website is not to be taken as having editorial or equivalent responsibility for the decision to publish any material on the site, or for content of the material, if the person did not post the material on the site.
(4) The fact that the operator of the website may moderate statements posted on it by others does not matter for the purposes of subsection (3).

That clause also stipulates a list of exempt publishers under Schedule 5.

Special interest titles

4 A person who publishes a title that—

(a) relates to a particular pastime, hobby, trade, business, industry or profession, and
(b) only contains news-related material on an incidental basis that is relevant to the main content of the title.

I bet most bloggers would fall in this category.

What clause 21A sets forth are the circumstances under which a relevant publisher can be charges exemplary damages by the courts. Under Clause 29 and Schedule 5 it would be very difficult to categorizes a blogger as a relevant publisher. This is yet another tempest in a teapot brought on by reporting that only shows the salacious part of a story.

That's unfortunate -- you could try the advice here: http://www.writetothem.com/about-qa#noreply (or as much of it as applies in Canada).

My previous MP (I recently moved house) was dismissive, but I knew she would disagree with most of what I wrote to her about.

We have a website in the UK: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ which is a great resource -- I get emailed every few days when my MP speaks in Parliament with a link to a transcript. There are NZ, Australian and Irish versions (it's open source), is there something similar for Canada?

You could still make the quiz (there's one for the Republican primaries, which I didn't notice before -- there may well be one in a few month's time for the US election).

Politicians not doing what they say they will do is a different problem, and I'm not sure how you could solve that one. Possibly if a new, small party can really concentrate on one area and actually win, do good things on a local level (and show a decent voting record nationally), it could later win other areas. That's not easy with the winner-takes-all voting system, but unless on of your two main parties splits, I don't see how you'll get any more diversity of opinion, leading to pressure to actually implement a "platform". Perhaps direct action and a general strike -- but that could be difficult, when things only gradually get worse it's difficult to motivate lots of people. Better, non-corporate media?

A group of geeks in the UK have made a series of websites, one of which is TheyWorkForYou. It parses the official record of proceedings in Parliament (called Hansard, no idea why) and present the voting record, list of speeches etc for each member. The Prime Minister is here: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/david_cameron/witney . I get updates about every week or so when my MP speaks in Parliament -- since I signed up for them, she's not said much that's interesting, but I intend to write to her if she does.

The charity behind that website has other projects too: http://www.mysociety.org/projects/

No, the commitment specifically referred to open source: "The Government are committed to using more open source solutions where possible." - Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister.

Where possible. That doesn't mean if there's an open source solution it wins. That means if there is an open source solution that is better we will use it. Only zealots would push to be fully open source regardless of cost and productivity of the people using it.

No, the commitment specifically referred to open source: "The Government are committed to using more open source solutions where possible." - Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister.

Been done, in the UK at least. Great resource:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com

Ya think?

I can find no other evidence of such a database. Can you provide any?

I've just found a UK Member of Parliament's web site that mentions such a database: go to
http://www.gregknight.com/ and then select Press (which redirects to a home directory on an IP address, which is why I'm not posting the direct link), then scroll down to 1st April 2009.

See also http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/greg_knight/east_yorkshire to confirm that his web site is genuine.

Not a big majority and in a seat that I suspect will have a lot of strong feeling on this topic (particularly students). For £500 it might be worth standing as a Pirate myself..... :-)

It's not the lack of democracy that's the problem, it's the lack of transparency. Even in the directly elected European Parliament, voting records are secret so you can't tell whether your representatives are representing you at all. Contrast that with the other tiers of government in the UK where I can get detailed reports about any of my representatives. I'm tempted to stand in the next European election on a platform of greater transparency - you can't have democracy without accountability and the European parliament does not have this.

How about we go the whole nine yards, and impliment a full scale government, politician, and business/commerce data mining system that's open, p2p, and usable by anyone?

We have one in the UK and, best of all, it's government-funded.

It isn't illegal in the US (unless it falls under obscenity laws, in which case it would be illegal to publish).

It is illegal to possess in the UK, as of January this year, if it falls under one of their rather vague definitions that they made up in the law (see http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ , http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/24/extreme_pron_law_live/ ).

When the UK Government first started thinking "Something Must Be Done" (because some murderer happened to have previously looked at a website featuring porn that the murder victim's mother didn't like), their first response was to try to get the sites shut down. That didn't work, because the sites were legally hosted in places like the US (well, actually, some were also hosted legally in the UK). So instead they decided to criminalise UK citizens themselves for just looking at naughty pictures (it even applies to entirely private personal pics).

Don't get me wrong, I don't find that stuff appealing, but I don't find gay sex appealing either. That doesn't mean it's wrong -- it's just not my thing.

Exactly. If only more people could get this. With this law, it was depressing to see how many people - from lobbyists to politicians - giving the "But it's disgusting" response as their justification.

One of the good guys. The voting record http://www.theyworkforyou.com/peer/baroness_miller_of_chilthorne_domer Baroness Miller http://suemiller.org.uk/

Where I live (Cambridge), voting Tory could easily let the Labour candidate back in. Furthermore, our MP is very strong on civil liberties. Imperfect, to be sure (I disagree with the utilitarian strain of liberalism that leads to such things as the smoking ban), but unlikely to be easily improved upon, even if the Tory did get in, since it would be difficult to beat a law scholar who care about civil liberties in efficacy.

Apart from the special case of Cambridge, that Lib Dems are typically strong on civil liberties must mean that if this is an issue of importance for you, you should be willing to hold your nose to vote for them if it's appropriate in your constituency. Of course, the same reasoning applies in reverse to those places where the Lib Dems are weaker than the Tories.

There is, however an upper limit on the vote available to the Tories: some people feel that they simply cannot vote for them. Accordingly where the support for Lib Dems and Tories are similar, a vote for the Lib Dems will be more likely to succeed. Realistically speaking, intent to vote Conservative is felt by borderline LD/Labour voters, so that they shrink from voting Lib Dem in order to 'keep the Tories out'.

Note that the chair of Indict is Ann Clywd, Labour MP and strong supporter of the war on Iraq.

His work as an MP http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/da/15560 and his works as a Minister of State http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=David_Lammy&mpc=Tottenham & http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?s=David+Lammy&p=4 - indeed a busy man.

The BBFC's job is classification, not censorship. It has no power to ban material or demand cuts in any material.

As of the Video Recordings Act 1984, video can only be legally sold or hired if it has been classified. (Consider the recent case of Manhunt 2 as an example.)

Indeed, the BBFC's name changed from "censors" to "classification" at the same time that the Act changed their job from that of classification to censorship. As summed up in a House of Lords debate:

"On Report, I spoke about the Video Recordings Act 1984. I did not repeat one of the juiciest pieces about it. Until that time, we had a British Board of Film Censors, which was not a censorship board. It classified films, and if it refused to classify them, they could still be shown with the permission of local authorities. The Video Recordings Act 1984 changed the board from being a classification board to being a censorship board because if a video recording was not approved by the board, it could not be shown at all. From being a classification board, it became a censorship board, but its name changed from being a censorship board to a classification board. George Orwell would have been proud."

but certification is only withheld where it's considered the material in question would breach the criminal law, usually the Obscene Publications Act.

That's one reason, but the class of material they will refuse to classify is slightly broader than that (e.g., see http://www.bbfc.co.uk/classification/c_R18.php ).

Now having said that, I agree with the main point of your post in that the problem is with the laws rather than the BBFC - in this case, the Video Recordings Act 1984, and the Obscene Publications Act (not to mention a new law that as of January 26 will criminalise possession of adult images considered "extreme" by the Government).

This event was a slip up, we were not supposed to know about the censorship and filtering going on

The ISPs involved have generally been very honest and upfront about their relationship to IWF. To anyone paying attention, this shouldn't have come as a surprise. See, e.g. this article from 2000 about IWF's activities, or this parliamentary comment. Just because you're not aware of something doesn't mean it's a secret.

I think the point is more that the tedium can still be documented on a medium that is ideal for large abouts of tedious stuff - the internet - and then the interesting bits can be found and talked about. See what the UK group OpenSociety has done with www.theyworkforyou.com , like the processing of The Hansard into accessable form http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?pid=10068&pop=1#n4

His answer? "To stop terrorists killing people in our society quite a long way, actually." Which sent a chill down my spine.

The war in Iraq has made Britain a tempting target for Islamic extremism, but funnily enough Geoff Hoon strongly supports the Iraq War.

When it comes to preventing terrorism, it seems Mr. Hoon rates bombing Iraqis more important than maintaining British civil liberties.

So you mean the system in Iran isn't as bad as the US Gov is painting it?

It probably isn't as bad, since some in the US government were itching to invade Iran until recently. However, the Iranian second chamber is full of Islamic scholars, who're basically there to elect a president and then ensure that he remains 'Muslim enough'. They also have zero transparency (quite unlike the Lords or Canadian Senate). Also they only meet once or twice a year, whereas the House of Lords is one of the busiest chambers in the world. If you look at those debates, you'll see many of them go on late into the night, debates lasting until 10 or 11pm are not uncommon.

In short: just because one unelected chamber is full of Islamic scholars, it doesn't mean they all are. :)

Well, in a conflict like Iraq, you're correct - the US government orders stuff from US industry, and some of it gets destroyed.

But in the world wars, the US was selling a lot of equipment to Western Europe, bringing money into the US and bankrupting Europe. The debt from the UK to the US was trillions of dollars.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2002-02-28.38424.h

Jacqui Smith
smithjj@parliament.uk
House of Commons Fax number: 020 7219 4815
House of Commons Phone number: 020 7219 5190
Constituency Fax number: 01527 523355
Constituency Phone number: 01527 523355
Additional Info: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/jacqui_smith/redditch

Home Office:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/contact-us?form=general
public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Tel: 020 7035 4848
Fax: 020 7035 4745

They're not even shy about it. Labour MP Brian Donohoe is on the record as saying that the decision on which voting system is to be used should be decided "on the basis of party interest" (i.e. not the public interest). It's no surprise that he favours the system that massively over-represents his party in parliament.

To illustrate just how poorly the Westminster voting system misrepresents us, I would refer you to the Constituency results from the 2007 Scottish election, which uses the same system. Had the Scottish election not been supplemented by the List results, Labour could have retained power with a majority of parliamentary seats, despite having gathered less votes than the SNP.

I understand the reasons for keeping the current system, but it's advantages are easily outweighed by its democratic deficiencies, and on that basis it has to be replaced.

TheyWorkForYou, which I work on, has much nicer transcripts, a much better search engine, and now speech-matched video of the House of Commons from the BBC too (though we need your help! :) ). I've written three technical posts on the technology behind the video timestamping, which I guess someone might be interested in: http://www.mysociety.org/2008/06/12/theyworkforyou-video-the-flash-player/ is the first.

TheyWorkForYou, which I work on, has much nicer transcripts, a much better search engine, and now speech-matched video of the House of Commons from the BBC too (though we need your help! :) ). I've written three technical posts on the technology behind the video timestamping, which I guess someone might be interested in: http://www.mysociety.org/2008/06/12/theyworkforyou-video-the-flash-player/ is the first.

Then there is still time to do this:

1. Go to theyworkforyou.com and find your MP.

2. Write letter (see example below).

3. Post it.

I'm writing to you following yesterday's vote on the ability to hold `terrorism suspects' for 42 days without charge. I am truely ashamed that the DUP felt compelled to use its in uential position to push this through for the government.

Existing `anti-terror' laws have already regularly abused to harrass pension- ers, stop and search thousands of peace protesters and prevent environmental protests. These are hardly the cutting edge of terrorism that was waved before us to scare us into accepting these laws. This law would further undermine the basic right to due process and trial and the assumption of innocence.

If the law allowed for judges to pass indenite detention for proven terrorists, you can rest assured you would not hear from me. In fact, it already does; it's called a life conviction. But while the subject is suspects and not convicts, laws like this pose an innitely greater risk to our (your and my) freedom than any terrorism this country has seen.

I am particularly let down by your apparent capitulation to Brown's desire, in the context of the large Labour rebellion, since your past stances and speeches on topics such as ID cards and the government's previous attempt to extend the detention period give the impression of someone who values your constituents' rights and freedoms. The accusations shouted across parliament towards DUP of `being bought,' whether true or not, do nothing for the DUP's apparent lack of integrity on this issue.

If you are in doubt about the popularity of this law, I suggest you visit the BBC forum site: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=4145. Assuming and hoping the House of Lords has the common sense to return this poor legislation, I would strongly urge you to vote against it.

I look forward to your reply,

Yours Sincerely,

Andrew Simpson

Should be theyworkforYOU - http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ - site linked by parent is a parked ad-site.

Just announced yesterday: mySociety's House of Commons video site. Crowd-source some video timestamps today!

Why might the government seek to close the site down? After all, aren't mySociety "the biggest single catalyst for political change in this country"? (Lord Gould of Brookwood, House of Lords debate, 15/6/06)

Well, they may be, but they may have fractured, or at least bent, a copyright law or two.

You see, Parliamentary video exists under a draconian copyright license under which it "must not be hosted on a searchable website and must not be downloadable", apparently for fear of naughty citizens making humorous or satirical use of it; or indeed any use at all.

To which the mySociety guys and gals seem to have said a collective, "Well that's silly," and gone ahead and done it anyway. Good on you, people.

Seriously, do your bit for democratic transparency and go and timestamp a few videos now. It's curiously addictive.

Just announced yesterday: mySociety's House of Commons video site. Crowd-source some video timestamps today!

Why might the government seek to close the site down? After all, aren't mySociety "the biggest single catalyst for political change in this country"? (Lord Gould of Brookwood, House of Lords debate, 15/6/06)

Well, they may be, but they may have fractured, or at least bent, a copyright law or two.

You see, Parliamentary video exists under a draconian copyright license under which it "must not be hosted on a searchable website and must not be downloadable", apparently for fear of naughty citizens making humorous or satirical use of it; or indeed any use at all.

To which the mySociety guys and gals seem to have said a collective, "Well that's silly," and gone ahead and done it anyway. Good on you, people.

Seriously, do your bit for democratic transparency and go and timestamp a few videos now. It's curiously addictive.

Just announced yesterday: mySociety's House of Commons video site. Crowd-source some video timestamps today!

Why might the government seek to close the site down? After all, aren't mySociety "the biggest single catalyst for political change in this country"? (Lord Gould of Brookwood, House of Lords debate, 15/6/06)

Well, they may be, but they may have fractured, or at least bent, a copyright law or two.

You see, Parliamentary video exists under a draconian copyright license under which it "must not be hosted on a searchable website and must not be downloadable", apparently for fear of naughty citizens making humorous or satirical use of it; or indeed any use at all.

To which the mySociety guys and gals seem to have said a collective, "Well that's silly," and gone ahead and done it anyway. Good on you, people.

Seriously, do your bit for democratic transparency and go and timestamp a few videos now. It's curiously addictive.

Salisbury Plain 1656 Coal Dusters

Yes, after the Ancient coal prospect was excavated and found being a duster, Stonehenge uses blossomed into many. Very, very, very many. The Ancient of days beneath Helestone. Coal explorationist family resting place. International olympic sports athletes graves. So many uses in fact, that after the Ancient Ice Ages' survival fuel was not found there, that I make no attempt to list any of them; Save the Ancient favorite; "STONEHENGE: An Olympic Stadium". Why? Because as James Hutton and John Playfair have said, and as Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology (1830) summarise;

"The present is the key to the past."

The Robin McKie article is right on target. Now that the mystery of Stonehenge is gone, and all the mysteries of its associated sites are gone, Wiltshire's tourism industry is ruined. Thanks a lot Mr. & Ms. Scientist, why could you have not left these ditches and holes alone with their eternal secrets. Now there is no tourism industry here on Salisbury Plain, its just one huge brimstone cremated Coal duster. "Well thank God that the seven (7) artefacts are beneath Heelstone," says Wiltshire's tourism industry, "Without them how would any of us survive? Yes thank God they are there."

Stonehenge Improvement Program

1. Stonehenge Visitor Centre located near Airman's Corner (A344 / A360) between North and West sources of G-d's rock collection.
2. Long-bored twin carriageway tunnels 10-kilometres (6.2-miles) length beneath the A303 / A344 / A360 highways at Stonehenge.
3. New junctions, bypasses, flyovers, underpasses: Airman's Corner, Longbarrow & Countess Roundabouts, Winterbourne Stoke.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/user/?u=3440

It actually pains me that the unelected house is the only thing keeping the governments nastiest instincts in check now.

I agree - but what also saddens me is that despite the extensive criticism given to this law in the House of Lords (to which Lord Hunt, the Government spokesperson can only respond with "But, but - these images are disgusting!"), they are unable to overturn the law, because the Government still turns out all of its Labour drones to vote in support of the Government. Sure many of them defected, but there were too many of them who were loyal to the Government, which evidently can still exert an influence in the second house.

The last hope is that some sane amendments will be voted through, but I fear this will be unlikely. The final debate in the Lords is tomorrow (Wednesday) - we'll know by tomorrow just what the wording of this trainwreck of a law will be. And it'll be law by May 9, according to the Government.

but that's what we're debating right now.

If only ;) That's what people are trying to debate (such as on the BBC News article, and in the House of Lords). The Government, and those who support this law, are not interested in debate - the law will be forced through tomorrow, and any criticisms brushed aside with "But these images are disgusting! No one must be allowed to see them!")

I would hope that the word LIKE is the important one here. It's true that representatives, be they Congressmen, Senators, MPs or whatever, have taken to blogging or MySpace or Facebook as way of 'increasing communication', but the truth that all it does is add another layer of mediated, mostly one way communication about what the honourable member would like you to know about what you are paying them to do. It's only partially how an electronically enabled government should work.

In the UK it's taken a voluntary group, MySociety, to pick up voting and speaking data from Parliament and turn it into a site that provides statistics on how our MPs perform. They are currently lobbying to get this data presented in a globally usable way. It seems to me that this is the absolute minimum data that we should get in return for our trust and the money we spend to maintain democracy. Recent concerns about how MPs use their expenses system have also caused Parliament to respond with some openness, but in the end they are our public servants and *none* of this should be secret. OK, it might not be the most rivetting read in the world, and I can understand the poster who said that they don't want to know how government works, just that it does, but I think it's the least that we are owed. Concentrate on general accountability instead of just getting 'the message' across.

I would hope that the word LIKE is the important one here. It's true that representatives, be they Congressmen, Senators, MPs or whatever, have taken to blogging or MySpace or Facebook as way of 'increasing communication', but the truth that all it does is add another layer of mediated, mostly one way communication about what the honourable member would like you to know about what you are paying them to do. It's only partially how an electronically enabled government should work.

In the UK it's taken a voluntary group, MySociety, to pick up voting and speaking data from Parliament and turn it into a site that provides statistics on how our MPs perform. They are currently lobbying to get this data presented in a globally usable way. It seems to me that this is the absolute minimum data that we should get in return for our trust and the money we spend to maintain democracy. Recent concerns about how MPs use their expenses system have also caused Parliament to respond with some openness, but in the end they are our public servants and *none* of this should be secret. OK, it might not be the most rivetting read in the world, and I can understand the poster who said that they don't want to know how government works, just that it does, but I think it's the least that we are owed. Concentrate on general accountability instead of just getting 'the message' across.

Mikael is right to say that proportional representation is working in Scotland. Approval ratings for the Scottish Government are on the rise; compare this to the approval ratings of the Labour government in Westminster, which are in free-fall.

The problem is that Labour know that they will lose seats in parliament if they introduce proportional representation (this is not because PR gives an unfair advantage to small parties, as some would say; it is because the current first-past-the-post system gives an unfair advantage to large parties). Even before they lost power in Scotland, they had gone cold on the idea of proportional representation after they were forced to endure coalition government in both Scotland and Wales.

This Hansard excerpt, dated 2006 (while Labour was still in coalition government in Scotland), is very telling of Labour's disregard for the wishes of the electorate (emphasis mine):

I suggest to the Minister and the Secretary of State that we start to adopt the same type of policy and look at things on the basis of party interest, otherwise we will be in great difficulty. The measure now proposed by the Scottish Parliament--the single transferable vote being introduced for council elections--is like turkeys voting for an early Christmas.

- Brian H Donohoe (Ayrshire Central, Labour)

If proportional representation was introduced to this House, would not there be a danger that disreputable minority parties would claim the credit for the good things that this Labour Government have done, in the same way that they do in the Scottish Executive, particularly in respect of the Dunfermline by-election?

- Jim Sheridan (Paisley & Renfrewshire North, Labour)

So getting proportional representation essentially requires Labour to be voted out, and I don't believe for a second that the Tories would be any happier with the prospect of a voting system that diminishes their advantage.

But how long will Clegg be in charge for? His politics aren't bad, he was one of the Orange Book authors after all; but his support from the rest of the party is not exactly whole hearted and universal. The fundamental problem is that the Liberal Democrats are trying to be all things to all people and in doing so there policies are an inconsistent mess. They need to decide whether they are Labour-lite or liberals.

I will be voting for whoever is most likely to unseat the incumbent apparatchik. Sadly this is likely to be some policy free rent-a-Tory. On the upside, even a Tory is likely to vote against the introduction of ID cards. So they won't be quite as awful as Linton.

As for "we vote for MPs, not parties": this is one of the many problems with our electoral system. An MP doesn't have a great deal of power in their constituency. That lies with central government as a whole and the local authority; MPs are nothing but bodies who vote in Parliament. As long as the whip system persists and free votes are a rarity, the MP's own values will be subservient to those of their party. Even more damaging is the first past the post system which tends towards large majorities. If the ruling party votes as a single block (which they usually do) then the opposition might as well not be there. What is needed is a system that produces coalition governments and so forces the largest party to reach compromises with one or more opposition parties. Any system that allows the party with 40% of the popular vote to exercise 100% of the power is a poor system, but there's no incentive for governments to change it as they benefit from its existence once in power.

So it is only logical that some people will develop a taste for kiddie porn once they see some of it.

Though I'm sure that most people have heard of the idea of child abuse. I think it is a non-sequitor to go from examples of ideas, to seeing it graphically.

Indeed, by this logic, all this campaigning and witchhunting against child porn and child abuse is creating more pedophiles, so we should stop it all and say nothing!

Just to make some general comments on the story - the intro says "online pornography and violent websites", then it says "pornography and inappropriate material", and then we get the comment about child porn. I wonder which we are talking about? Adult porn or fictional violence isn't the same thing at all as child porn (though in both cases, I'm not too bothered if they filter them for schools); "inappropriate material" could be anything.

It's unclear whether this is simply mandatory for ISPs to optionally provide, or whether it will be mandatory to use. Even with the former, there are the issues that it may be on by default, or some ISPs might not bother with the hassle of allowing you to opt-out, or it will be advertised as a "child porn" filter even if it filters much more.

Here in the UK we have similar fears - when debating plans to criminalise possession of "extreme" material considered inappropriate by the Government, MP Martin Salter called for "all PCs to be fitted with a blocking mechanism before they are sold on the open market - as cars are automatically fitted with seat belts" (look, a car analogy!)

Who is Martin Salter and what does he do? What else does he vote for? well...

look at his voting record here; http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/martin_salter/rea ding_west

things include...
Very strongly against investigating the Iraq war

Now I might not be an MP and, as thus, able to say what people should think in the same way the labour party does, but I would think that WAR might (just might) "trigger an unbalanced mind" to do something crazy - or else why would the London bombers explicitly mention it in their suicide videos? I'm not saying that it provides an excuse for what they did, nor even that we should feel bad for ensuring that Saddam got what was coming to him, but does he not think that the arse up that has been made of post-invasion Iraq (after the end of the formal hostilities) might be worth investigating - it could give us some new perspectives on why some people feel so strongly that they would try and kill as many people they could...

Nah. Its definitely the porn.