Freedom to criticise and question, in strong terms and without malice, is the cornerstone of argument and debate, whether in scholarly journals, on websites, in newspapers or elsewhere. Our current libel laws inhibit debate and stifle free expression. They discourage writers from tackling important subjects and thereby deny us the right to read about them.

The law is so biased towards claimants and so hostile to writers that London has become known as the libel capital of the world. The rich and powerful bring cases to London on the flimsiest grounds (libel tourism), because they know that 90% of cases are won by claimants. Libel laws intended to protect individual reputation are being exploited to suppress fair comment and criticism.

The cost of a libel trial is often in excess of £1 million and 140 times more expensive than libel cases in mainland Europe; publishers (and individual journalists, authors, academics, performers and blog-writers) cannot risk such extortionate costs, which means that they are forced to back down, withdraw and apologise for material they believe is true, fair and important to the public.

The English PEN/Index on Censorship report has shown that there is an urgent need to amend the law to provide a stronger, wider and more accessible public interest defence. Sense About Science has shown that the threat of libel action leads to self-censorship in scientific and medical writing.

We the undersigned, in England and beyond, urge politicians to support a bill for major reforms of the English libel laws now, in the interests of fairness, the public interest and free speech.

Sign petition at libelreform.org

Last week Stephen Gough was found guilty of breaching the peace when he walked naked from Perth prison in December after finishing a 12 month sentence for the same offence.

Mr Gough was warned he will continue to be jailed every time he steps out of prison without any clothes on.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to stop criminalising live music with the Licensing Act, and to support amendments backed by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and the music industry, which would exempt most small-scale performances in schools, hospitals, restaurants and licensed premises.

Submitted by Phil Little of Live Music Forum.

Under the Licensing Act, a performance by one musician in a bar, restaurant, school or hospital not licensed for live music could lead to a criminal prosecution of those organising the event. Even a piano may count as a licensable entertainment facility. By contrast, amplified big screen broadcast entertainment is exempt.

The government says the Act is necessary to control noise nuisance, crime, disorder and public safety, even though other laws already deal with those risks. Musicians warned the Act would harm small events. About 50% of bars and 75% of restaurants have no live music permission. Obtaining permission for the mildest live music remains costly and time-consuming.

In May, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee recommended exemptions for venues up to 200 capacity and for unamplified performance by one or two musicians. The government said no. But those exemptions would restore some fairness in the regulation of live music and encourage grassroots venues.

Our democracy is in crisis. MPs fiddle while the planet burns. Our rights and freedoms are under attack. Bankers blow billions and the taxpayer foots the bill. We can't go on like this.

We need a healthy democracy that works for all of us and not just a powerful few. POWER2010 exists to help create it. It gives you the chance to have your say on how our democracy works so that together we can change it for the better.

Do you want cleaner funding? Fairer voting? More accountability? You decide. Tell us your ideas for changing the way we run our country. Those with most support will become the POWER2010 Pledge and the focus for our national campaign at the next election.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to introduce a Voluntary 'Unrated 18' Certificate in the UK

In the USA, Norway and Germany? unrated films can be sold to 18+ adults. In Denmark? unrated films may be sold to people aged fifteen and over, whilst in Sweden the government is looking to introduce a similar measure.

In the UK, in order to sell a film to a member of the public it must first be submitted to the BBFC, who charge a fee, a fee which can run to thousands of pounds.

The North West New Wave, a blanket term which has recently been used by both filmmakers and local press to describe independent filmmakers in the Northwest of England, is campaigning for the introduction of a Voluntary Unrated 18 Certificate.

This would allow independent film makers, who often have little to no budget at all, but who today have the technological means to make films themselves, to voluntary offer their film into the public market under a blanket 18 certificate, regardless of content.

Such a relatively simple reform would be the largest and most significant step that could be taken in support of British film culture. The BBFC would still be able to do its job, and the UK would come in line with other countries which successfully value and use a Voluntary Unrated 18 Certificate.

It's time to name, shame and take a snapshot of the worst excesses of our Big Brother State:

We have thousands of stickers like the one on the right and we want to give them away so that you can name and shame the everyday invaders of your privacy.

Send us your name and address to info@bigbrotherwatch.org.uk together with the number of stickers you would like us to send and we will post them in an envelope to that address, completely free of charge.

Then email us your pictures and the best images will be hosted on the blog and our Facebook group page!

Relax the censorship laws and role of the BBFC

The BBFC is responsible for classifying and censoring all film releases in cinemas and on DVD in the UK. During the early 70/80s there were concerns over the effects of the "video nasties" - causing viewers to re-enact deviant behaviour or "corrupting" the youth. As a result, the BBFC were handed guidelines by the government to censor certain materials. These measures saw a massive decline in the production of "video nasties". Although any film could be labelled a "nasty", the ones particularly targeted were so for their disturbing portrayal of sex, violence, sexual violence and real wild animal violence.

However, despite research, there is no conclusive proof that events portrayed in the movies have any significant effect in altering the moral values or behavior of the veiwers, whats more animal violence occurs in nature naturally and is merely being documented.

Therefore, I petition the PM to take the initiative, lift the censorship laws that are not in place to protect unwilling participants, liberate the British film industry from censorship and allow the general public to choose what they WANT to watch for themselves.

..Sign the petition

Say no to the mean minded

To: Maria Carlshamre, MEP, rapporteur FEMM
Reference:

Draft report on prostitution in the Member States and the health consequences for women (2007/2263 (INI)) From the Committee on the Rights of Women and Gender Equality (FEMM)

We reject the report and ask :

• Elimination of discrimination with regard to consensual sexual services agreed between mature, free adults. It is a profession with unique skills and specialized training.
• Decriminalization and legalization of sex work: No rules without the participation of the sex workers. Give the sex workers rights against injustice.
• Stop with ideological agitation against sex work and Paysex by them with violence and abuse, coercion and war, drugs and disease.
• Assistance, education, counselling and training for sex workers: Safety First, Safer Sex, Sex Worker Burn Out Prevention, Self business management, training, Career Opportuinites, stigma management, vocational exchange
• Promotion of networking and self-representation of sex workers: sex workers are part of the solution
• Anonymous STI testing for sexually active people.

Sign the Petition

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Amend s63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act so as to explicitly target images of sexual abuse and to prevent the persecution of consenting adults, whether gay or straight, whose sex life involves consensual activity such as bondage, discipline, sadomasochism or role-playing.

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 makes it a criminal offense to possess an 'extreme pornographic image'. This law is not evidence based and did not have proper parliamentary scrutiny.

As the new law stands, thousands of consenting adults who enjoy consensual, staged fantasy images of bondage and other kinks could have their lives, and that of their families, wrecked for looking at images of activities where no crime was committed.

We propose to amend this legislation so as to explicitly target people who collect images of real abuse. Similar amendments were introduced in the House of Lords but were rejected by the Government without good reason.

An amendment to provide a defense of reasonable belief of consent and absence of serious injury should be brought forward immediately.

...Sign the Petition

Result:

69 signatures

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to apologize for the prosecution of Alan Turing that led to his untimely death

Alan Turing was the greatest computer scientist ever born in Britain. He laid the foundations of computing, helped break the Nazi Enigma code and told us how to tell whether a machine could think.

He was also gay. He was prosecuted for being gay, chemically castrated as a 'cure', and took his own life, aged 41.

The British Government should apologize to Alan Turing for his treatment and recognize that his work created much of the world we live in and saved us from Nazi Germany. And an apology would recognize the tragic consequences of prejudice that ended this man's life and career.

Result: PM Apologises aver treatment of Alan Turing

11th September 2009. 31,156 signatures to date.

The Prime Minister writes:

2009 has been a year of deep reflection – a chance for Britain, as a nation, to commemorate the profound debts we owe to those who came before. A unique combination of anniversaries and events have stirred in us that sense of pride and gratitude which characterise the British experience. Earlier this year I stood with Presidents Sarkozy and Obama to honour the service and the sacrifice of the heroes who stormed the beaches of Normandy 65 years ago. And just last week, we marked the 70 years which have passed since the British government declared its willingness to take up arms against Fascism and declared the outbreak of World War Two. So I am both pleased and proud that, thanks to a coalition of computer scientists, historians and LGBT activists, we have this year a chance to mark and celebrate another contribution to Britain’s fight against the darkness of dictatorship; that of code-breaker Alan Turing.

Turing was a quite brilliant mathematician, most famous for his work on breaking the German Enigma codes. It is no exaggeration to say that, without his outstanding contribution, the history of World War Two could well have been very different. He truly was one of those individuals we can point to whose unique contribution helped to turn the tide of war. The debt of gratitude he is owed makes it all the more horrifying, therefore, that he was treated so inhumanely. In 1952, he was convicted of ‘gross indecency’ – in effect, tried for being gay. His sentence – and he was faced with the miserable choice of this or prison - was chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones. He took his own life just two years later.

Thousands of people have come together to demand justice for Alan Turing and recognition of the appalling way he was treated. While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time and we can't put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him. Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly. Over the years millions more lived in fear of conviction.

I am proud that those days are gone and that in the last 12 years this government has done so much to make life fairer and more equal for our LGBT community. This recognition of Alan’s status as one of Britain’s most famous victims of homophobia is another step towards equality and long overdue.

But even more than that, Alan deserves recognition for his contribution to humankind. For those of us born after 1945, into a Europe which is united, democratic and at peace, it is hard to imagine that our continent was once the theatre of mankind’s darkest hour. It is difficult to believe that in living memory, people could become so consumed by hate – by anti-Semitism, by homophobia, by xenophobia and other murderous prejudices – that the gas chambers and crematoria became a piece of the European landscape as surely as the galleries and universities and concert halls which had marked out the European civilisation for hundreds of years. It is thanks to men and women who were totally committed to fighting fascism, people like Alan Turing, that the horrors of the Holocaust and of total war are part of Europe’s history and not Europe’s present.

So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan’s work I am very proud to say: we’re sorry, you deserved so much better.

Gordon Brown

When Jacqui Smith unveiled proposals to track every e-mail, phone call and text message, she might have let herself in for more than she bargained for.

Thousands of civil liberties campaigners plan to flood the Home Secretary's inbox by copying her in on every email they send on 15 June.

Martin Allan Gray is spearheading the campaign. He said he aims to send the message: You want to see our e-mails? OK, here they are!

Ms Smith announced proposals for a communications database monstrosity, containing details of everyone's telephone calls, e-mails and internet use, last month,

A message from Mr Allan Gray on the campaign's Facebook page says: This is an immense infringement of civil liberties, not to mention a major risk to our private data – but it won't make us any safer.

Allan Gray has won the backing of Liberal Democrat MP Lynne Featherstone, Welsh Assembly member Peter Black and the Bishop of Buckinghamshire.

In her blog, Ms Featherstone described the proposals as bonkers and said she was backing the e-mail onslaught because civil liberties is the Lib Dem middle name.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to withdraw the Government's support for the Communications Data Bill

The Communications Data Bill would give the Government the legal authority to collect a database of every phone call, e-mail and time spent on the internet by the public. Even though the Government insists that this bill would reduce terrorism (which it probably will not), this is an intolerable intrusion into the privacy of free citizens and a step towards a dystopian "Big Brother" state. The Bill must be quashed to protect civil liberties and halt the slippery slope towards an Orwellian 1984-type nightmare.

Result: Snooping On

Closed with 1210 signatures

Government Response:

The Government has not proposed to create a centralised database which would hold the content (what was said or written in a communication) of all phone calls and e-mails sent by the public.

In April 2009, the Government published a consultation paper “Protecting the Public in a Changing Communications Environment” which considers how best to maintain the capability of public authorities to obtain access to communications data. The existing capability is declining in the face of rapid technological changes in the communications industry. The consultation document does, however, specifically rule out a central database holding all communications data.

Communications data is the “who, when, where and how” information from mobile phone calls, texts, e-mails and instant messages but is not the content. The use of communications data is an important capability that is used by the police and other agencies to protect the public and fight crime and terrorism.

The consultation outlines ways to collect and retain communications data and seeks views on how to strike the right balance between privacy and security. The system the consultation proposes is based on the current model where communications service providers collect and retain data and where there are strict and effective safeguards in place to ensure that relevant public authorities can only access the data on a case-by-case basis, when it is necessary and proportionate to do so.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop ISP's from breaching customers privacy via advertising technologies.

We petition the Prime Minister to investigate the Phorm technology and if found to breach UK or European privacy laws then ban all ISP's from adopting it's use. Additionally the privacy laws should be reviewed to cover any future technologies such as Phorm

The UK's three largest ISP's, Virgin Media, BT and TalkTalk are all in talks with a view to introducing the Phorm technology. This would result in the browsing habits of the majority of the UK population being sold to a third party for advertising purposes. The opt out system for this technology is vague and unproven, even when opting out your every move on the Internet might be recorded. Surely this must be a breach of privacy laws, if not then the privacy laws need to be changed to cover such invasive technology.

Update: Result

Closed with 21,403 signatures

Government response:

Thank you for the e-petition on internet advertising technologies and customer privacy.

As your petition states, some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have been looking at the use of Phorm’s Webwise and Open Internet Exchange (OIX) products. However, the only use of the technology so far has been the trials conducted by BT.

Advertisers and ISPs need to ensure that they comply with all relevant data protection and privacy laws. It is also important that consumers’ privacy is protected and that they are given sufficient information and opportunity to make a clear and informed decision whether to participate in services such as Phorm.

The Government is committed to ensuring that people’s privacy is fully protected. Legislation is in place for this purpose and is enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). ICO looked at this technology, to ensure that any use of Phorm or similar technology is compatible with the relevant privacy legislation. ICO has published its view on Phorm [pdf] on its website

ICO is an independent body, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to second guess its decisions. However, ICO has been clear that it will be monitoring closely all progress on this issue, and in particular any future use of Phorm’s technology. They will ensure that any such future use is done in a lawful, appropriate and transparent manner, and that consumers’ rights are fully protected.

Have you got a licence for that camera?

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to clarify the laws surrounding photography in public places.

Through history, we have documented the world around us, whether through written word, art or photography.

Photography in particular has provided fantastic insights into the past and present, and is a hobby enjoyed by millions of people worldwide.

But today, it's becoming increasingly difficult to take photos of our surroundings, particularly in cities like London.

In recent years, the price divide between professional and consumer equipment has blurred, and it's quite common these days to see amateurs and hobbyists carrying around tripods, SLR cameras and a backpack full of equipment.

Yet, we are constantly harrassed by security guards and police officers in the name of preventing terrorism. They seem to be operating under a different interpretation of the law to the rest of us, believing that somehow the length of your lens, or size of your camera is relevant.

We would like clarification by the goverment on the law regarding photography of buildings and landmarks from public locations.

Update: Result

Closed with 5792 signatures

Statement from No 10 Downing Street:

There are no legal restrictions on photography in public places. However, the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else in a public place. So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations, inflame an already tense situation, or raise security considerations. Additionally, the police may require a person to move on in order to prevent a breach of the peace, to avoid a public order situation, or for the person’s own safety or welfare, or for the safety and welfare of others.

Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the police officer concerned as to what action if any should be taken in respect of those taking photographs. Anybody with a concern about a specific incident should raise the matter with the Chief Constable of the relevant force.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to reject proposals to drive prostitution further underground by prosecuting clients of prostitutes; to endorse the policy suggested by the Royal College of Nursing, the National Association of Probation Officers and others by decriminalising prostitution; and to observe Council of Europe Resolution 1579 of October 2007.

Criminalising clients means:

• Street prostitutes revert to darker less safe areas
• don’t carry condoms (as used in evidence)
• they have little time to appraise clients and weigh up risk
• dispersal breaks up informal networks, needed for protection, and inhibits health services' ability
• trafficking victims are less likely to be helped
• prices have fallen so they have to work longer with more clients, and accept clients + acts they would have rejected .

We call upon Government to decriminalise + to comply with Council of Europe Resolution 1579 (Oct 2007), specifically:

…avoid double standards + policies which force prostitutes underground or under the influence of pimps..; instead...seek to empower them..by..refraining from criminalising…prostitutes + developing programmes to assist (them) leave the profession should they wish to..;…ensuring prostitutes have access to safe sexual practices...respect the right of prostitutes who freely choose (prostitution) to have a say in.. policies..;..ending the abuse of power by the police + other public authorities towards prostitutes..

Update: Result

Closed with 733 signatures

Government Response:

The Government has a Coordinated Prostitution Strategy. Offences exist to deal with anyone buying or attempting to buy sex from someone on the street; and in terms of off-street prostitution, our Strategy is clear that the demand for commercial sex from under-18s or individuals trafficked to this country is totally unacceptable. We have specific offences that cover paying for the sexual services of a child, and rape remains the appropriate offence with which to prosecute those who pay for sex with an individual who does not consent.

We will also do all we can to prevent individuals from falling into work in prostitution, and are committed to ensuring that services are in place to allow women already involved to develop routes out.

However, we recognise also that there is significant support for more to be done to tackle the demand for prostitution. Recently, the Home Secretary announced a number of proposals which have arisen from a major review into tackling the demand for prostitution. These include our intention to outlaw paying for sex with someone controlled for another person’s gain. This is aimed at protecting vulnerable individuals, for example those who have been trafficked or exploited in some other way. We also announced a crackdown on kerb-crawlers, as well as new powers to close premises associated with prostitution.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Support ISP's in not bowing to pressure from a desperate insustry into becoming defacto net police.

Recently there have been increasingly desperate attempts by the music industry to control how individuals consume media. Since these measures have in large parts failed (as a public relations disaster and an expensive, ultimately ineffective process), the industry is attempting to force ISP's to bear the blame for users actions and police information consumption.

There is no practical way to detect the difference between legal and illegal material – particularly if the content is encrypted therefore this will effectively ban the use of some methods of transferring data. ISP’s should not be encouraged to invade a users privacy by analysing their data if they are not suspected of any crime, this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which very quickly leads to censorship of the internet.

The government should not legislate on behalf of the music industry but should support open internet policed if necessary by public authorities using the usual mantra of innocent until proven guilty, requiring evidence and a court order before a users privacy may be invaded in this way.

Closed with 244 signatures and the following government response:

In December 2005, the then Chancellor asked Andrew Gowers to undertake an independent review of the UK intellectual property framework. The Review was published in December 2006 (and can be found on the website). The Government welcomed the findings of the Review, and committed to taking forward those recommendations for which it is responsible, to ensure that the UK Intellectual Property (IP) regime is fit for the digital age.

The following recommendation concerned "peer-to-peer" (P2P) data-sharing - in effect the un-authorised copying of data files (typically music or films) between individuals:

"Recommendation 39: Observe the industry agreement of protocols for sharing data between ISPs and rights holders to remove and disbar users engaged in 'piracy'. If this has not proved operationally successful by the end of 2007, Government should consider whether to legislate".

The issue is a complex one and has implications for data protection, e-commerce, consumers, the network infrastructure, competition, and copyright protection. To date, industry has been unable to develop a voluntary solution and, in view of this, we have decided to start looking at possible legislative solutions. As stated in the Creative Britain strategy paper published on 22 February:

"We will consult on legislation that would require internet service providers and rights holders to co-operate in taking action on illegal file sharing - with a view to implementing legislation by April 2009".

The consultation paper, which the Government is developing in discussion with stakeholders (including not just the music industry but also the film and software industries and ISPs), will seek to identify a number of possible legislative options, including technological solutions. However, the Government's preferred option is - and always has been - a voluntary solution.

For that reason we have made it clear that, whilst we will continue to develop possible legislation options, this will be in parallel with the industry's continuing efforts to develop a voluntary solution. If and when such a solution is presented to us, we will pause the legislative process to allow a proper trial, and stop it if, as Gowers recommended, a voluntary solution proves operationally successful.

As noted in the petition, there are potential difficulties with any technical solution to monitor or block file-sharing. Such technology does exist although it is not yet clear how reliable it is, especially in the number of "false positives" it generates. (A false positive is where the system miss-identifies legitimate traffic as illicit). Use of such technology also raises issues in connection with the "mere conduit" status of the ISPs, and hence any solution involving technology would have to take account of this and of any e-privacy issues.

On privacy, the Government recognises that any solution must take account of the relevant data protection legislation, and must have built in safeguards to ensure the rights of the consumer are protected. It is also worth noting that, under the e-Commerce Directive, ISPs cannot be placed under a general obligation to monitor internet traffic.

There are of course, legitimate uses of peer-to-peer technology, notably in academia, although possibly the most high-profile is the BBC's iPlayer. We have no intention of legislating to ban the use of peer-to-peer technology.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Decisively Reject The Swedish Model As An Effective Method Of Improving The Health, Welfare And Safety Of Sex Workers.

The Swedish Model is an attempt to suppress the oldest profession by criminalising the client only. This is in breach of the basic requirements of sexual equality. Results have shown that prohibition drives the industry further underground into a area of greatly increased risks to sex workers. This is unacceptable. The Swedish Model would also be extremely difficult and costly to enforce in the UK, and would divert resources from the prevention of trafficking. Most workers in the industry favour decriminalisation of their profession, and that is seen as the basis for constructive legislation.

Thanks to David Tong who submitted the petition

Closed with 67 signatures

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to allow the BBFC to continue in their current role without the political interference called for in the British Board of Film Classification (Accountability to Parliament and Appeals) Bill 2007-08.

In reality explicit sex DVDs are widely available without proper controls. It is illegal to show R18 explicit sex films on Sky, cable or terrestrial TV. It is also illegal to sell R18 in ordinary shops or by mail order. For 90% of people it is impractical to visit a licensed sex shop in person. There is a thriving underground market - local newspapers openly advertise discreet motorcycle delivery via untraceable mobile phones. Unregulated retailers have every incentive to maximise profit and no incentive to observe R18 boundaries or to check the ages. They are already breaking the law and have no licence to loose. Some include rape, torture porn and worse in their stock. Some include religious hate material. If R18 material was widely available, the unregulated market would shrink drastically, and unregulated sellers would go out of business. Allow sales in legit video stores, which check age, limited to 10% by stock level and by £ sold. This will improve protection for under-18s.

Thanks to Wynter Tyson who submitted the petition

Closed with 61 signatures