Government
moves to reduce the availability of suicide sites on the internet may herald
a new era of online censorship in the UK.
Last week, Justice Minister Maria Eagle announced a review of the law on
suicide. Citing the usual suspect – public concern – she said:
Protecting vulnerable and young people must be a priority and a
responsibility for us all.
There is no magic solution to protecting vulnerable people online. Updating
the language of the Suicide Act, however, should help to reassure people
that the internet is not a lawless environment and that we can meet the
challenges of the digital world.
It is important, particularly in an area of such wide public interest and
concern, for the law to be expressed in terms that everyone can understand.
We continue to work with the internet industry to look at long-term ways to
keep people safe and without jeopardising our freedom of speech.
Or in plain English: We are finally going to do something about people who
have the temerity to use the internet to talk openly about this subject.
Freedom of speech is optional.
Monty
Python fans in the Devon resort of Torbay will be able to
publicly watch The Life Of Brian for the first time after
a 30-year-old ban on the film was lifted.
When the comedy was released in 1979, the local authority said
its 15 rating should be upped to an 18. The film's distributors
refused and the movie was effectively banned and never shown in
the resort, reports The South Devon Herald Express.
The film recently won a vote to be shown at the English Riviera
International Comedy Film Festival, forcing Torbay Council to
seek legal advice on the ruling made three decades ago. It was
subsequently decided that the 1979 decision is now redundant.
Torbay mayor Nick Bye said: The world has moved on. I haven't
seen the film but I welcome its showing on Sunday.
When
Glasgow Rangers fans sang the Famine Song at an Old Firm derby they
never thought it would cause so much trouble:
I often wonder where they would have been
If we hadn't have taken them in
Fed them and washed them
Thousands in Glasgow alone
From Ireland they came
Brought us nothing but trouble and shame
Well the famine is over
Why don't they go home?
Now Athenry Mike was a thief
And Large John he was fully briefed
And that wee traitor from Castlemilk
Turned his back on his own
They've all their Papists in Rome
They have U2 and Bono
Well the famine is over
Why don't they go home?
Now they raped and fondled their kids
That's what those perverts from the dark side did
And they swept it under the carpet
And Large John he hid
Their evils seeds have been sown
Cause they're not of our own
Well the famine is over
Why don't you go home?
Now Timmy don't take it from me
Cause if you know your history
You've persecuted thousands of people
In Ireland alone
You turned on the lights
Fuelled U boats by night
That's how you repay us
It's time to go home.
But the song angered one fan so much he put in a complaint that led
Irish diplomats to raise the concerns with the Scottish government.
Now anti-censorship campaigners have stepped into the row, claiming this
weekend that any attempt to curb the fans from singing the lyrics would
be a dangerous assault on freedom of speech. It is the Rangers
fans' right, they say, to insult the Irish over the Great Famine if they
choose.
Index on Censorship's Irish-born spokesperson, Padraig Reidy, said he
was concerned about the state intervening: Considering we all know
that there have been nasty, offensive songs at Old Firm games for years,
making it into a national issue seems absurd and dangerous. It's trying
to set a legal limit on speech that isn't incitement to violence.
Rangers and Celtic have an agreement between themselves to sing what
they want.
Reidy said that, while the song about the Famine is undoubtedly
offensive, behaviour should be controlled by the two clubs rather than
the state: It's different to anti-discrimination laws, which are a
very good thing, but seeking to outlaw any kind of insulting or
offensive speech/songs does become very problematic, because someone
will always take offence.
Rangers FC said it has approached Strathclyde Police for guidance, a
spokesman for the club said, adding fans had been actively discouraged
from singing the song at games.
The
theatre is a watchword for unfettered artistic licence. Or is it?
Dramatists and producers still engage in battles with state censors —
who can still determine what is fitting for public consumption. The
official role of state censor, given to the Lord Chamberlain under the
Licensing Act 1737, may well be dead — but censorship is alive and well
in other guises.
Early
last Thursday, police in Market Harborough and Rugby arrested two
forensics experts, Jim Bates and Chris Magee, on charges of "conspiracy
to possess indecent images of children". Jim Bates has frequently given
testimony in computer forensic and child pornography cases, and had been
working on a case along with Magee, who is a director of Cyber
Forensics.
The arresting officers also seized large quantities of material, both
hard copy and digital, from the two men. This included material that is
claimed to be "privileged" within the meaning of the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act.
Jim Bates is controversial. He has testified extensively and often in
criminal cases, but is best known for his role in defending individuals
accused of downloading child porn, and for his criticism of Operation
Ore, which resulted in thousands of child pornography arrests in the UK.
Talking to The Register he made it clear that he sees the official
investigation of many such cases as systematically flawed. He is
scathing of police "experts" in this area, arguing that most lack the
expertise to carry out all but the most basic of analyses.
The
Google-owned video sharing website YouTube has moved to counter criticism that
it helps fuel gang violence by introducing new rules to ban submissions that
glamorise guns and knives.
The UK-specific rule will ban videos showing weapons with the aim of
intimidation after criticism that fierce battles were being fuelled by rival
members posting videos.
A Google spokesman said: There has been particular concern over videos in the
UK that involve showing weapons with the aim of intimidation, and this is one of
the areas we are addressing.
The move comes days after YouTube also introduced new global guidelines to
outlaw content that directly incites violence.
But the new rules will not change the internet giant's stance on the way content
is regulated. It is committed to a policy of user-moderation, arguing it is
impractical for it to vet every video before it is posted. Once a video is
flagged up as potentially inappropriate YouTube's staff examine it and remove it
if it breaks the guidelines.
The
Press Complaints Commission has censured the Daily Sport for a
gratuitous article that glamourised suicide after the tabloid
published a Top yourself tourism list.
The Daily Sport published a list of the UK's top 10 suicide hotspots
using information released by the British transport police that
showed 25 people had died on one stretch of railway line over three
years.
Choose Life, a government-backed education project working to reduce the
numbers of suicides in Scotland, complained to the PCC that the piece
had provided unnecessary detail which might encourage vulnerable people
to visit the places shown and take their own lives and said the
piece was highly irresponsible.
The PCC upheld the complaint and said it breached clause 5 its code of
practice, introduced in 2006 following discussions with the Samaritans
to try and reduce the risk of imitative suicide. It was the watchdog's
second censure of a complaint under the new rules.
Clause 5 states that care should be taken to avoid excessive details
about the method used when reporting suicides.
The PCC ruled that the article was simply a gratuitous guide to how
and where individuals have killed themselves. It treated a serious
subject in a light-hearted manner and may have glamorised suicide in the
eyes of some readers.
A
teen has attacked four women supposedly in an imitation of violent
computer game Grand Theft Auto, a court heard.
Ryan Chinnery, 19, prowled streets in his car targeting females he
thought were prostitutes after 'becoming obsessed' with the game.
He assaulted his victims, none of them hookers, by night in a
two-month period.
And the court was told he may have been influenced by the virtual
reality game, in which a character drives around on “missions” —
including approaching prostitutes who can be beaten up.
Dragged
A copy of Grand Theft Auto was found at his home by police.
Yesterday Chinnery was told he faces a long prison sentence after he
admitted two sex attacks. Two similar offences were left on file.
Prosecutor Eleanor Laws said Chinnery’s love of Grand Theft Automay go some way to explaining his attitude towards women.
Prostitutes in it can be subjected to violence. There may be some
connection with the defendant admitting spending a lot of time
playing that game.
Judge Philip Statman adjourned sentencing until October 22 pending
probation and psychiatric reports. The case will fuel debate on the
effects on youngsters of violent computer games.
Britain's
biggest exam board has been accused of censorship after it removed a
poem containing references to knife crime from the GCSE syllabus.
Officials at the AQA board said their request that schools destroy the
anthology containing the Carol Ann Duffy poem Education for Leisure
had been triggered by concerns in two schools about references to
knives. A spokeswoman confirmed the decision had been made in the
context of the current spate of knife-related murders.
But poets yesterday condemned the move, saying such "censorship"
fundamentally missed the point of the poem, which they said could help
children debate the causes of street violence.
The poem starts:
Today I am going to kill something.
Anything.
I have had enough of being ignored and today
I am going to play God.
It describes a youth's yearning for attention and a journey to sign on
for the dole, and makes references to the killing of a goldfish. It ends
ominously with the youth walking the streets armed with a bread knife.
Duffy's literary agent, Peter Strauss, said: It's a pro-education,
anti-violence poem written in the mid-1980s when Thatcher was in power
and there were rising social problems and crime. It was written as a
plea for education. How, 20 years later, it had been turned on itself
and presented to mean the opposite I don't know. You can't say that it
celebrates knife crime. What it does is the opposite.
A spokeswoman for AQA confirmed there had been three complaints, two
referring to knife crime and a third about the description of a goldfish
being flushed down the toilet.
The AQA spokeswoman said: The decision to withdraw the poem was not
taken lightly and only after due consideration of the issues involved.
We believe the decision underlines the often difficult balance that
exists between encouraging and facilitating young people to think
critically about difficult but important topics and the need to do this
in a way which is sensitive to social issues and public concern.
Singer
Sandi Thom has had the video for her latest single banned from YouTube
because of scenes of drug-taking.
The Scottish singer-songwriter told The Scotsman that the video, which
featured a compilation of images sent in by fans of their Saturday
nights, was discovered to have contained inappropriate scenes,
including one of a man with what appeared to be four lines of cocaine in
front of him. The images also featured a man with his hands down his
trousers, she said.
I thought it was hilarious in a way when I found out they'd banned
it, but I also felt bad for my fans who had sent in their pictures in
good faith who won't get to see them now, said Thom.
Unless
you tell me it's withdrawn, I'm coming round to the academy and I'm
going to stab the first person I see, was one of the threats
received by the Royal Academy during the 1997 Sensation exhibition. The
reason? Marcus Harvey's portrait of Myra Hindley, made from multiple
copies of children's handprints.
Inevitably, the picture succumbed to vandalism and was removed from the
show for repair, but the marks from the canvas remained on the wall,
along with a plaque detailing the work. That void seemed to speak
volumes about our relationship with contemporary art in this country.
Eleven years on, the picture has lost none of its power to shock - a
fresh burst of outrage has followed a fleeting glimpse of the artwork in
a Visit London video screened in Beijing to promote the 2012 Olympics.
The picture appears in a montage of images highlighting London's
thriving cultural scene.
A
housewife has taken on one of Britain's best-selling children's authors
and a leading publishing house to censor the word 'twat'.
Random House Children's Books has agreed to remove 'twat' from a popular
book by Dame Jacqueline Wilson, after complaints from Anne Dixon, who
insists she is standing up for values of common decency.
She claimed she was 'horrified' when she came across the expletive in
the best-selling book My Sister Jodie - a gift for her
nine-year-old great-niece.
She complained to Asda, in Stanley, County Durham, where she bought the
book, and the store initially removed it from sale.
Now the publishers said they will – by altering one letter – substitute
the word with “twit” when the book is reprinted.
On the publisher's website, My Sister Jodie is recommended for children
aged from nine to 11.
Mrs Dixon said: I am not a prude. In fact, I am quite broad-minded,
...BUT... this is completely inappropriate for children.
The book has an attractive cover and is clearly for children. They
should not have to be subjected to trash and vulgarity. I did not expect
this from a well-respected author and do not want my young niece to have
to see this obscene slang.
I got to the page where reference was made to a 'toffeenosed twit'.
On the next page the word changed. I thought I was mistaken, but then I
saw to my shock it had been repeated twice again.
A spokesman for Random House Children's Books said: In the context of
the character, we felt it was used in a way that accurately portrayed
how children like Jodie would speak to each other. The term had been
included "on purpose" because it was uttered by "a nasty character".
The book is aimed at children aged ten and over, and we felt it was
acceptable for that age range. However, in light of this response we
have decided to amend the word when we reprint the book.
A spokesman for Asda said: "Since the book was launched in March this
year, we have sold over 28,000 copies and this is the first complaint we
have had. The spokesman said that Asda had reviewed the matter and would
continue stocking My Sister Jodie in all its UK outlets.
Comment:
(Hate) Mail
From David
Driven, as usual, by one person's determination to dictate to everyone
else for the sake of the children and supported, as usual, by the
(Hate) Mail
Random House: The book is aimed at children
aged ten and over, and we felt it was acceptable for that age range.
However, in light of this response we have decided to amend the word
when we reprint the book.
Asda: Since the book was launched in March this
year, we have sold over 28,000 copies and this is the first complaint
we have had.
So the publishers thought it was appropriate, Asda alone have sold
over 23,000 copies since March so I would guess the total sales must be
at least near the half-million mark, there has only been one complaint
and so they're going to the expense of changing the book?
I'd have told the twat to fuck off and get a life if this had been about
one of my books....
Will the books be rated by language complexity or suitability of
content?
I can't really see any 5+ rated books as being suitable for anyone
but 5 year olds. It all seems too simplistic to be very helpful. And no
doubt the kids will immediately self ban anything rated as suitable for
ages less than their's.
From
this autumn, a number of publishing houses will "age band" their
children's books.
Each book will carry a specific marking indicating they are suitable for
readers aged 5+, 7+, 9+, 11+ and 13+/teen.
Books will also carry a recommendation for where they should be placed
in book shops or libraries.
Research within the book industry suggests people buying books for
children would welcome the guidance.
But it is a scheme which has already enraged a number of writers, among
them former children's laureate Michael Morpurgo: There's no such
thing as an average seven-year-old. They could be four or 10, or like
me, 65 - it's just nonsense. If you say a book is for a seven-year-old,
the nine-year-old is going to be trying to cover it up at the back of
the class.
The scheme followed research by the Publishers' Association, which
suggested standardising age recommendations might help boost reading.
The interesting thing about children's books is that it's not the
readers who are buying them - it is parents and grandparents and
libraries and schools, said Sarah Grady, the children and education
programme director for the Edinburgh International Book Festival: I
think that's what the publishers were trying to address. As a reader,
you drop a book if you don't like it so children will self censor, but
it's knowing what to buy them in the first place.
JK Rowling's publisher Bloomsbury and about eight other major publishers
have said they would not take part in the scheme. The rest of the
industry - including Puffin, Orion and MacMillan - are in favour of age
banding unless individual authors object.
And writers have been vocal in their criticism - more than 750 authors
have already signed an online petition set up by Philip Pullman, best
selling author of the His Dark Materials trilogy. They include JK
Rowling, Anthony Horowitz, Terry Pratchett, Alan Garner and the four
writers who have held the Children's Laureate title - Quentin Blake,
Anne Fine, Jacqueline Wilson and Michael Rosen.
The UN's committee on human rights has just published a report
criticising Britain's anti-terror laws and the resulting curbs on civil
liberties. For many commentators the issues raised are mostly a matter
of academic abstractions and speculative meanderings. For me, it is
anything but. These laws have destroyed my life.
On May 14 I was arrested under section 41 of the Terrorism Act - on
suspicion of the instigation, preparation and commission of acts of
terrorism: an absurdly nebulous formulation that told me nothing
about the sin I had apparently committed. Once in custody, almost 48
hours passed before it was confirmed that the entire operation
(involving dozens of officers, police cars, vans, and scientific support
agents) was triggered by the presence on my University of Nottingham
office computer of an equally absurd document called the al-Qaida
Training Manual, a declassified open-source document that I had
never read and had completely forgotten about since it had been sent to
me months before.
Hicham Yezza, an activist and writer, was released without charge after
six days in custody, immediately rearrested on immigration charges and
issued with a removal order to Algeria, after which he was held for a
further 27 days; he is still awaiting a conclusion to his deportation
case
A
celebrated artist's nude self-portrait has been banned from an art
competition. Maxime Xavier was told that her nipples were too big in the
picture and that it was therefore too risque for public viewing.
Maxime insists that her picture is no more explicit than nudes by
artists such as Rubens exhibited in galleries worldwide.
But organisers of the art competition show in Lyme Regis, Dorset,
insisted that she remove it.
Maxime branded the decision "crazy". She said: It is ludicrous to say
that the good people of Lyme Regis need to be protected from seeing my
nipples. A few people on the organising committee told me that my
painting could not be shown because my nipples were too erect.
The painting is called Possession. It is a serious work and shows
a man holding his lover tightly as if he owns her while she appears
lovey-dovey.
Mike Cawte, manager of the Town Mill gallery, said the painting had been
deemed unsuitable. He said: This might be small town prudery but it
is just a storm in a teacup. Various people were unhappy with Maxime's
painting. At this time of year the majority of our visitors are not
artists. They are holidaymakers, families with young children who come
off the beach and see the gallery.
Sir
Salman Rushdie has accused his publisher of censorship at the same time
as trying to prevent the release of a book that criticises him.
The novelist, who spent nearly a decade under a fatwa from the Iranian
government after the publication of The Satanic Verses in 1988,
attacked Random House for pulping a historical novel about the Prophet
Mohamed for fear of offending Muslims.
Sherry Jones's debut novel, The Jewel Of Medina, about the
Prophet Mohamed and his child bride, was due for release this month. But
Random House said credible and unrelated sources had warned that
the book could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.
Rushdie's very public intervention comes at a time when he is engaged in
a legal battle to amend the content of a book that criticised him.
On Her Majesty's Service by Ron Evans, who was part of Rushdie's
police protection team, makes claims – all of which are denied by the
author – that he was imprisoned by guards who got so fed up with his
attitude that they locked him in a cupboard under the stairs and all
went to the local pub for a pint or two. When they were suitably
refreshed, they came back and let him out. Evans, who contends that
police nicknamed Sir Salman "Scruffy" because of his unkempt appearance,
also makes several other allegations.
Rushdie denied there was any contradiction in his actions, saying:
[Sherry Jones's book] is a work of fiction. Ron Evans's book is not, and
it contains a very large number of provable lies and complete
absurdities which were defamatory not just about me but my son's mother,
Elizabeth West, the Metropolitan Police and people including John Major
and Norman Tebbit.
Under pressure from Sir Salman's lawyer, Evans is believed to have
amended his most contentious chapters.
Knickers
for young girls made to promote the film High School Musical 2
are being withdrawn after a complaint that they were sexually
suggestive.
Sue Relf bought the underwear for her seven-year-old granddaughter
at Asda in Broadstairs, Kent, and took them home to find the words
Dive in! on them.
Disney issued a statement which said: We are very sorry to hear
that a customer is unhappy with one of our High School Musical
products and apologise for any offence caused.
The knickers in question were designed using our High School Musical
2 artwork, which uses the creative theme of a swimming pool, as this
is a key part of the film's storyline. Unfortunately a genuine
oversight was made and the text on this product was used outside the
context of the swimming pool.
This product will not be part of any forthcoming collections.
An Asda spokesperson said: There is very limited stock available
of this particular line still remaining in Asda stores. It was
completely innocent and certainly not meant to cause any offence to
customers. However, we will now withdraw the product from all
stores.
British
libel laws are stifling free speech around the world as wealthy
businessmen and celebrities increasingly turn to UK courts to silence
their critics abroad, the United Nations has warned.
In a report published yesterday, the UN's Committee on Human Rights
criticises the phenomenon of "libel tourism", where foreign businessmen
and millionaires use the High Court in London to sue foreign publishers
under claimant-friendly defamation laws.
It said that UK defamation law had discouraged critical media reporting
on serious public interest matters, affecting the ability of scholars
and journalists to publish their work.
The report cites the case of Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld, an American researcher
who was sued in London by a Saudi businessman and his two sons over a
book which was not published in the UK, although 23 copies were sold
into the jurisdiction via the internet and one chapter was available
online.
The committee also criticised the way the British Official Secrets Act
1989 had been used to stop former Crown employees from bringing issues
of public interest into the public domain and said that provisions in
the Terrorism Act 2006 regarding encouragement of terrorism were vague
and could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
The committee said it was concerned that the Official Secrets Act had
been used to frustrate former employees of the Crown from bringing
into the public domain issues of genuine public interest, and can be
exercised to prevent the media from publishing such matters. It
noted that disclosures of information were penalised even when they did
not harm national security.
The State party should ensure that its powers to protect information
genuinely related to matters of national security are narrowly utilised
and limited to instances where the release of such information would be
harmful to national security, the report says.
The committee was concerned about the "broad and vague" definition of
the offence of "encouragement of terrorism" in section 1 of the
Terrorism Act.
In particular, a person can commit the offence even when he or she
did not intend members of the public to be directly or indirectly
encouraged by his or her statement to commit acts of terrorism, but
where his or her statement was understood by some members of the public
as encouragement to commit such acts, the report says.
The committee called on the Government to consider amending the part of
section 1 which deals with encouragement of terrorism so that its
application does not lead to a disproportionate interference with
freedom of expression.
Edinburgh
Fringe organisers were accused of censorship last night after it emerged
that non-accredited journalists have been prevented from doing
interviews on the Royal Mile, one of Edinburgh's main thoroughfares.
Colin Macnab, a freelance sound recordist, said he had been stopped from
doing his job on several occasions by members of the Fringe Office staff
who believed they could control any media activity on the Royal Mile.
He said he had been stopped from working, told to move and warned that
only accredited journalists could work on the street. Macnab said he had
been stopped from working with a German producer last week by one
official who told him he was not on the High Street but on a Fringe
venue.
He said he was appalled that he was being treated that way on a public
street. He added: This is hindering my work. My concern at the end of
the day is that this is censorship. It's not on for someone other than
an editor to decide what goes on TV.
Duncan Fraser, a spokesman for the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, admitted
that stewards did patrol the area and members of the media were asked to
make sure they were accredited. He justified this with some worthless
bollox about it being only done to make sure that events ran smoothly.
Google
has unblocked Scamp, the UK's most popular advertising industry blog,
following the removal of comments containing "hate speech".
Scamp, which is run by advertising executive Simon Veksner, had been
blocked since Friday by Google-owned blogging platform Blogger. Visitors
to Scamp had been blocked, until today, from accessing posts and were
instead shown the message that it was in violation of Blogger's terms
of service.
It has emerged that Google moved to cut access after the blog was
flagged for use of hate speech", according to an official message
posted by administrators of the blogging platform.
Veksner speculated that the post that triggered the complaints was
called Sauce Poll on the subject of who in an ad agency you would
prefer to date?. He said he assumed that it was an offensive
comment, which has now been deleted, along the lines of how they
would rather have sex with someone with Down's syndrome than an
advertising professional.
Veksner said that while the post, made on Friday, did draw a backlash
from the online community he at first left it on the blog. A lot of
people were offended, but I decided not to delete the comment, he
told MediaGuardian.co.uk: My policy is I do delete comments where the
commenter is intending to be offensive, but I don't delete comments
where the commenter's primary intention is to be witty, even if what
they say ends up offending people.
I’ve
just come across this nonsense on Martin Salter’s entry in Wikipedia:
Salter has promoted legislation proposing to
criminalise possession of so-called "extreme pornography" [2]. His
campaign came about after the conviction at Lewes Crown Court of Graham
Coutts, a self confessed addict of violent internet pornography, for the
murder of Brighton schoolteacher Jane Longhurst. A petition, objecting
to "the presence of extreme internet sites promoting violence against
women in the name of sexual gratification", gained 50,000 signatures.
This prohibition was incorporated into the Immigration and Criminal
Justice Act 2008.
The last sentence is manifestly untrue. How it should read is: thanks
to a remorseless campaign against internet pornography in general,
fuelled by a great deal of disinformation and greatly facilitated by a
government terrified of being painted as ‘soft’ on porn by the Tories
and the press, Salter managed to bounce onto the statute book a
thoroughly ill-conceived and draconian measure which will criminalise
the possession of a wide range of material, and not simply that cited in
the original petition.
It's
difficult to remember the last time the BBC banned a record. What
was once an event to mark the official changing of a generation
seems to have vanished along with Top of the Pops. No wonder that
the youth of Britain has become depoliticised.
Not so long ago, mysterious men would dictate whether certain
records were suitable for Britain's pop diet.
At the BBC's Written Archives Centre in Caversham the files of the
Dance Music Policy Committee have been preserved for public
inspection. This was pop's equivalent of the Bilderberg Group. It
was a shadowy unit set up in the Thirties that took the role of
Britain's cultural guardian very seriously. When one member said
that he felt like “a crazy weather vane in a storm” the controller
of sound broadcasting replied: No one is more alive than I to the
need to buttress the forces of virtue against the unprincipled
elements of the jungle.
The
University of Nottingham has decided that its students and staff have no
right to possess terrorism-related materials for the purposes of
research, such as al-Qaeda training manuals freely available for
download from US Government websites.
One Nottingham postgrad student and a clerk were held under the
Terrorism Act for doing just this earlier this year, before being
released without charge (though the clerk now faces deportation), the
university has now made it clear that it fully supports these actions,
and says that the student has no reason to possess such material. He's
researching Islamic terrorism.
The student, Rizwaan Sabir, who is studying Islamic terrorism, said he
had downloaded a copy of an al-Qaeda training manual for use in his MA
dissertation and PhD application and had forwarded it to the
administrator, Hicham Yezza, for printing. After six days in detention,
neither was charged.
A police letter warned Sabir that he risked re-arrest if found with the
manual again and added: The university authorities have now made
clear that possession of this material is not required for the purpose
of your course of study nor do they consider it legitimate for you to
possess it for research purposes.
Comment:
Plods on doctoral research
From Alan
The letter from Mr Plod to Rizwaan Sabir is amazing: "The university
authorities have now made clear that possession of this material is not
required for the purpose of your course of study nor do they consider it
legitimate for you to possess it for research purposes."
The thing which immediately leaps off the screen is that the peak-capped
jobsworth who produced this nonsense doesn't have the first idea of what
Ph.D. research is. The reference to a "course of study" might be
appropriate to a an undergraduate. A person researching for a doctorate
is engaged in original research which will add to knowledge. When I
defended my thesis, and when Mr Sabir eventually defends his, we have to
convince senior academics, often internationally acclaimed experts in
their field, that they have learned something new.
There can be no concept of "required" reading in doctoral research. The
researcher doesn't know what he will find, or where he will find it. In
Mr Sabir's case, he might find relevant material in a body of Arabic
literature in the field of Muslim theology which has extended over a
millennium and a half.
Nor do the "university authorities" emerge with any credit, since Mr
Sabir was recommended to read the controversial document by his
supervisor. Perhaps the best way for him to stuff it to Plod and the
university's pusillanimous bosses would be to cite the document
extensively in his thesis.
Since
Mr Justice Eady in the High Court found in favour of car-racing mogul
Max Mosley against a Sunday paper there has been much hyper-ventilated
outrage on the issue of the wigged wonder having created a new so-called
“privacy law”.
There has even been a retired Archbishop of Canterbury wailing about the
end of national morality as we know it.
The
Dark Knight is rated 12a. Which, by the BBFC's reckoning, makes it
more suitable for youngsters than videogames given the '15' sticker.
Which is fair enough for a psychological horror such as Siren: Blood
Curse, but not so much for the colourful, nigh-on cartoonish alien
warfare of Halo 3. So, here's the crux: how can these forms of
media, with varying degrees of violence and gore fall under the same
bracket of classification? As was proposed this week by government
ministers.
The
internet industry must take more responsibility for protecting young
people from the "dark side" of digital content relating to abuse,
violence and suicide, according to a committee of MPs.
The investigation recommended the establishment of a self-regulatory
body to create better online safeguards to protect children from being
exposed to unsuitable material. The body would police websites,
adjudicate on complaints and could help crack down on piracy and illegal
file-sharing in Britain.
The culture, media and sport committee report, on harmful content on the
internet and video games, said that leaving individual companies to
introduce their own measures to protect users had resulted in an
unsatisfactory piecemeal approach which lacks consistency and
transparency.
The committee chairman, John Whittingdale, criticised YouTube for not
going far enough with proactive measures, beyond a pledge to take down
material when it is "flagged" up by users: We had a lively debate
with YouTube [who said they have] millions of users who act as
regulators. They understandably say they can't look at all the material
uploaded.
The report recommends a "proactive review of content" as standard
practice for sites hosting user-generated content. The idea would be to
introduce technological tools to "quarantine" material which
potentially violates terms and conditions of use until ... reviewed by
staff.
The report recommended a host of measures including improving the
"shocking" industry-accepted standard takedown time of 24 hours for the
removal of child abuse content. Whittingdale said a key concern was that
many young people did not realise when they are putting information on
social networking websites such as Bebo and Facebook it was being
"made available to the world".
The report recommends a default setting for social networking website
user profiles with heavily restricted access that would require a
"deliberate decision" to display personal information. The increasingly
worrying role of the influence of suicide websites was also highlighted
in the report. It said that it could be possible to look at blocking
such websites on a voluntary basis, in the same way that ISPs already do
for child sex abuse websites with the Internet Watch Foundation.
The report also agrees that parents need to take on a greater
responsibility to protect their children. The report also recommended
introducing the rating system used by the BBFC for computer games.
Internet sites such as YouTube should adopt TV-style watersheds to
protect youngsters from porn and violence, MPs said today.
Users posting home-made films would have to give them a cinema-style age
rating under the proposals. Those containing sex, bad language or
violence could be blocked before 9pm.
The move is among curbs proposed by the Commons Culture, Media and Sport
select committee.
A
Facebook game that lets users 'shank' each other - street slang for
stabbing - has been removed following complaints from anti-knife crime
nutters.
The virtual "shank" appears as an icon within the Facebook Superpoke!
application. Superpoke! allows users to send virtual actions to
other users such as smile, wink, take part in the Tour de France or send
a bouquet.
Although the application consists of mostly humorous actions, some of
the options, such as smack, slap and shank, have darker connotations.
When the knife icon is sent to a Facebook friend they receive a message
saying that they have been "shanked".
Superpoke! and Facebook came in for criticism in the Sun. The
uncle of Rob Knox, the Harry Potter actor who died after being stabbed
in May, told the paper that the application "incited violence".
Slide, who make the Facebook application, have now removed the 'shank'
option from Superpoke!.
Lord & 'Master' Carey
looking severe in a frock.
Inflicting extreme
sexual discipline.
with a veritable orgy of
tongue lashing!
Lord Carey of Clifton, previously Archbishop of Canterbury, said the
recent Max Mosley rulng created a wholly new privacy law which
would allow public figures to engage in unspeakable and indecent
behaviour without fear of exposure.
In the past a public figure has known that scandalous and immoral
behaviour carries serious consequences for his or her public profile,
reputation and job. Today it is possible to both have your cake and eat
it.
He said a case could be made for “direct link” between depraved,
brutal and repugnant behaviour in private and conduct in public
life: If a politician, a judge, a bishop, or any public figure cannot
keep their promises to a wife, husband, etc, how can they be trusted to
honour pledges to their constituencies and people they serve?
Lord Carey said creating a distinction between private and public
behaviour was a deeply-flawed 'anything goes' philosophy. It is also
dangerous and socially undermining, devoid of the basic, decent moral
standards that form the very fabric of our society.
Meanwhile Simon Calvert, of the Christian Institute said: There is a
growing culture of shamelessness which can be reversed only if Christian
leaders speak out for what is right. That is what most people expect and
hope Christian leaders will do.
Comment:
Theological Pillock
Thanks to the 'Archdeacon of Barchester' (and nuffin' to do with Alan,
honest)
Fascinating to see Carey jumping into the fray. This individual,
technically described by the theological term bloody pillock, has
a strong case to be the worst Archbishop of Canterbury since Saint
Augustine arrived in about A.D. 600. During the nineties, he ran a
decade of evangelism meant to have churches bursting at the seams.
Instead, he delivered the worst decrease in the number of worshippers
since the Black Death.
Since retiring, he has persistently crapped the nest of his unfortunate
successor. Poor old Rowan Williams, a highly intelligent, sensitive and
devout man, is trying to keep the Anglican show on the road, with
Nigerian fundamentalists and American new-agers both baying for his
blood, and Carey just cannot keep his gob shut.
His interest in morality and his inability to close his cake-hole neatly
came together when he went public on his advice to Prince Charles.
Chazza must have longed for the days when a man in his position could
have an awkward bishop shortened by a head. The prosing about morality
is particularly nasty in the case, where a poor sod completely
unconnected with Mosley's fun and games was sacked from his job when the
gutter press outed him when he and his wife refused to provide a nice
juicy story about women A-D.