Google resisted calls to screen videos before they appeared on YouTube, despite admitting it had been too slow to take down a clip which showed a 25-year-old mother being gang-raped.

The search giant was attacked by MPs after admitting it was "clearly a mistake" that a video showing the woman being raped was watched 600 times before being removed from YouTube, the video-sharing site it owns.

Giving evidence before a Commons select committee, Google's general counsel, Kent Walker, said it would go against the spirit of the internet to require all videos to be screened and resisted calls for tighter regulation of sites like YouTube.

Asked about the site's failure to take down the footage - which showed the mother being sexually assaulted by three boys after her drink had been spiked - more quickly, Walker told MPs: I do not know exactly what happened but it was a mistake.

Walker was giving evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport committee, which is investigating the dangers posed by the internet to children. He told the committee that YouTube's reviewers looked through "a huge amount" of material. He added that, of the offensive videos that were flagged to the site, more than 50 per cent were removed within half an hour. A large majority is removed within an hour.

Walker came under heavy fire from MPs, who said his inability to disclose how many staff were employed by Google to monitor footage flagged on YouTube suggested his defence was "incredible". Do you know how absurd you are sounding? asked Paul Farrelly, the Labour MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Walker said, however, that it would be "neither efficient not effective for YouTube to screen the entirety of the content uploaded by its users - about 10 hours of footage every minute - before it was made public: That would burden the process of creativity. You do not have a policeman on every street corner to stop things from happening, you have policemen responding very quickly when things do happen.

Sorry! The Human Rights Act has just been repealed by the Minister of Silly Walks

Danger! Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill Part 6 tries to remove even the limited constitutional safeguards of the "destroy Parliament" Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006

It looks as if we will have to again go through all the fuss and lobbying that we saw over the wretched Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, the previous attempt by this Labour Government to neuter Parliament by Order of a Minister.

Part 6
FINAL PROVISION
43 Power to make consequential provision

(1) A Minister o the Crown, or two or more Ministers of the Crown acting jointly, may by order make such provision as the Minister or Ministers consider appropriate in consequence of this Act.

(2) An order under subsection (1) may --

(a) amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or under an Act;

(b) include transitional or saving provision.

(3) An order under subsection (1) is to be made by statutory instrument.

(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) which amends or repeals a provision of an Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) which does not amend or repeal a provision of an Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

What happened to the supposed "super-affirmative procedure" and the whole of the debate in Parliament and in the UK political blogosphere over the wretched and controversial Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 then?

The abuse of the catch all, excessively broad wording "amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or an Act" means that even the Constitutional Acts like Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, Habeas Corpus, the European Communities Act, the Human Rights Act, the Civil Contingencies Act etc. can all be repealed or amended without the need for a full debate, or for new Primary Legislation, simply by Order of a Minister.

Significant Lords amendments have been tabled to Challenge the Dangerous Pictures clauses

LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS
BARONESS MILLER OF CHILTHORNE DOMER

Clause 63

Page 47, line 7, leave out "both"
Page 47, line 9, at end insert ", and
(c) records an actual act (whether performed in the United Kingdom or not) in which one or more persons committed a sexual offence"

Page 47, line 30, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

"(b) is obscene as defined by section 1 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (c. 66) (test of obscenity)"

Page 48, line 2, at end insert—
"(8A) In subsection (2) of this section, "a sexual offence" is an act which, if performed in the United Kingdom, would constitute an offence under Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42)."

These limit dangerous pictures to those of real (ie not staged) acts that are obscene or illegal

They have also submitted an amendment to leave out the Dangerous Pictures clauses in their entirety.

LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS
BARONESS MILLER OF CHILTHORNE DOMER

Leave out clause 63,63,65,66

Lords debate on the Criminal Injustice Bill has been extended

Further Report debates have been added on 27/3/08; 2/4/08; 21/4/08 and 23/4/08. Third Reading is on 30/4/08.

The timetable means that the Lords are keeping the Bill with them almost right up the 8th May dead-line which suggests all the ping-pong is being played now so that any law can get pushed through the HoC by May.

Certainly, the JCHR raised some serious objections, although leaving much material illegal.

We genuinely do believe that letters written at this stage is having an effect on the debate. Please encourage as many people as you can to have their say.

Comment: Possessed by Inconsistency

Thanks to Alan

Re JCHR comments criticising the Dangerous Pictures clauses:

It looks like a small - very small - step in the right direction, BUT...

How does the "no intention to distribute" provision make sense with regard to an offence of possession? The effect would surely be that if Mr A has dangerous pics which he has bought from a website, with the performers adequately paid, he commits an offence, while Mr B, who has hacked the private dangerous pics of his neighbour, doesn't.

They STILL seem to be taking the REA by Kelly et al. seriously. They don't seem to have noticed the research by Petley and others which demonstrates that it's rubbish.

SeeNoEvil has an interesting snippet about Salter ("Saltmines") who has now started moaning about post office closures, when it's suddenly dawned on him that the consultation process is a load of crap. Now, where has that happened before?

Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights has been considering the Dangerous Pictures Clause. They have not been particularly damning but have suggested a couple of areas where changes should be made:

2.16 The question is whether or not the proposed restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and respect for privacy are proportionate to the aims the Government seeks to achieve. The Government has stated that the offence is needed to protect individuals from participating in the offence, to break the cycle and to prevent vulnerable people, such as children, from coming into contact with the material. Whilst many people may find the material morally offensive, this alone is not sufficient to justify outlawing its possession. Given the particularly intrusive nature of the proposed offence on an intimate aspect of an individual's private life (his or her sexual conduct), weighty reasons are required to justify prosecuting people for possessing and viewing these images privately. We remain concerned that "serious injury" (Clause 63(7)(b)) may be subject to a broadly subjective assessment. This term must be interpreted in a way which does not lead to unjustified interferences in an individual's private life and discrimination on the basis of his or her sexual orientation or gender.[93] We recommend that the threshold for serious injury must include permanent physical harm.

2.17 There is some evidence, provided by the Government's rapid evidence assessment, of a causal link between viewing such material and an increased risk of committing sexual offences for a small number of people. However, the evidence does not extend to demonstrating that those who participate in the making of images are harmed by their involvement. We therefore recommend that the definition of the offence be further refined to exclude images created by consenting adults, where there is no serious physical harm to any participant and no intention to distribute the material beyond the participants involved. We recommend that guidance spell out factors which should be taken into account in order to ascertain that participants have consented. Such factors should include, for example, whether or not participants received payment.

The most frequent public complaint about Parliament and government is not about alleged sleaze but about the quantity and quality of legislation. Whether you are in the private or public sector, or a private citizen, the main impact of Westminster is through the torrent of Acts and consequent regulations.

The real problem lies in the desire of ministers to be seen to be legislating: the number of Bills each session is a measure of departmental virility. But the adversarial procedures of the Commons inhibit adequate scrutiny and have not stopped poorly drafted legislation from becoming law.

The record of the Lords is better. The increased assertiveness of peers has forced the Government to amend Bills. Not only has the Government been defeated twice as often as before the removal of most of the hereditary peers in 1999, but ministers have accepted broadly, rather than sought to reverse, the Lords’ position in two fifths of these defeats.

...Read full article

If ever you hear of British people  enjoying themselves, let us know, and we will put a stop to it

The politician in charge of Britain's licensing regime has announced he will review legislation which has opened the door to a string of fully nude lap-dancing clubs in Brighton and Hove.

Gerry Sutcliffe, the Minister responsible for licensing, told parliament he was concerned about the situation in the city and promised to consult with ministerial colleagues over a permanent change to the law.

He made the comments following a meeting with Hove MP Celia Barlow and city councillor Gill Mitchell to discuss supposed problems with the licensing act which has left nutters of Brighton and Hove City Council virtually powerless to stop clubs opening.

He said: We continue to review what can be done. We have made the right move in delegating the matter to local government, because it is right that local councillors and local government have the right to determine what goes on in their area. It is important that we look at the planning process and its objectives, and I am particularly concerned to hear that in Brighton, six lap-dancing clubs have been established in a very short time.

That problem will start to spread throughout the country, so I appreciate my honourable friend raising the matter. I will be happy to meet colleagues again to consider what can be done to ensure that [SOME!] local people get what they want in their local area.

Since the new licensing regime was introduced in November 2005, six clubs have been granted licenses for fully-nude dancing, although only four currently put on lap-dancing. Until that point only two operated in the city and nudity was not allowed.

Spearmint Rhino added to its international empire by opening the first fully nude club on East Street last year. The licence was approved by magistrates on appeal, overturning the council's initial rejection. Magistrates ruled that police could not establish the link between strip clubs and disorder and threw out the council's decision not to grant the East Street venue a licence.

Ms Barlow and the mean minded David Lepper, MP for Brighton Pavilion, both raised the supposed problem during a parliamentary debate on Wednesday.

She said: I am extremely encouraged by the minister's announcement. The current licensing act is wholly ineffective when it comes to regulating lap dancing clubs. These clubs have sprung up in the hearts of our communities, and I also welcome the announcement to contact local authorities over what more can be done under the current law to prevent these clubs from opening.

A Roman Catholic bishop has likened books which criticise the teachings of the Church to works that deny the Holocaust took place.

The Rt Rev Nutter Patrick O'Donoghue, Bishop of Lancaster, told MPs that books critical of the Catholic faith should be banned from school libraries.

Asked if that applied to works by authors such as Karl Marx and Albert Camus, he told the Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee: Suppose you went into a school and found in the library material that said the Holocaust never took place?

Fiona McTaggart, the Labour MP for Slough, said she was extremely concerned that Catholic sixth-formers would be denied access to great works of fiction as well as non-fiction if the bishop's ban were implemented. I would not expect a school to promote material that was lies but I also would also expect children to encounter a wide range of material even if they then need to be given the tools to criticise them, she said.

But Bishop O'Donoghue defended his stance. I think there has to be a vetting of material given the age range of children in schools. There is certain material that you do not put in front of them.

The bishop's summons to appear before the committee followed a document he produced last year which angered some MPs because of its strict line on sexual morality. In Fit for Mission?, Bishop O'Donoghue wrote: The secular view on sex outside marriage, artificial contraception, sexually transmitted disease, including HIV and Aids, and abortion, may not be presented as neutral information. "So-called" safe sex was based on the deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against Aids. Schools and colleges must not support charities or groups that promote or fund anti-life policies, such as Red Nose Day and Amnesty International, which now advocates abortion.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)

The Government have brought forward helpful amendments which meet the arguments about "appears to" and result in a much better definition. However, I do not see that any of the amendments they have brought forward so far deals with the point made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

(ie This means that individuals seeking to regulate their conduct in accordance with the criminal law cannot be certain that they will not be committing a criminal offence by having certain images in their possession).

We may not like it, but it is something that they do in the privacy of their own home. What entitles us as a legislature to pass something that is an invasion into their thoughts?

What really worries me about it is that we are asking these people to judge whether what they are seeing is going to fall within the remit of the Bill, before it ever gets to a jury. If they think that it does not, because they perhaps do not find it particularly exciting, and then for some reason their use is discovered, the police arrive and they are subsequently prosecuted, that will not sound like much of a defence. IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE THE GOVT CAN DO TO IMPROVE THIS CLAUSE? I suggest that this clause has been fairly rapidly arrived at, and it might be better to have something that is somewhat more substantial and over which more time has been taken. Perhaps a Joint Committee of both Houses could take evidence and look at the issue of violence and connection to crime, looking at substantial evidence from the UK, to SEE WHETHER WE CAN ARRIVE AT SOMETHING THAT IS SOMEWHAT MORE SATISFACTORY.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)-

....the Government are still muddled as to how to approach the problem of the dissemination of extreme pornography, which is why they have introduced the new and, as I see it, much more subjective standard in Amendment No. 125B. That would insert a new subsection stating that an "extreme image" is one which is,

grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

The problem here lies in defining what is offensive and disgusting, which is naturally subjective. It is dangerous to attempt to comment in criminal law on where the boundaries of taste lie. As I understand it, pornography covers a wide range of acts of different levels of what might be described as extreme acts of a sexual nature. For legislation to attempt to draw subjective parameters is, at worst, unworkable and may criminalise people who would not otherwise have seen those acts as disgusting, particularly if they had filmed themselves committing the acts as consenting adults and were viewing them themselves. I suggest that in those conditions they would probably not find them offensive or disgusting.

Moreover, the definition of pornography will be left to the jury..... the Government are seeking to bring in legislation which is highly subjective and then they are leaving the test to be decided by juries, who could deliver very different outcomes in cases with similar content depending on the part of the country where they take place. The onus on the jury to define pornography will place good people in an invidious position on matters that are so sensitive that, if the law has to enter here at all, it should be law that is capable of being clearly understood and demarcated. THESE CLAUSES WILL NOT ACHIEVE THAT PURPOSE.

The Bishop of Chester

While I applaud the Government's attempt to get to grips with this issue, I share a feeling that THINGS ARE NOT RIGHT. My brief experience in your Lordships' House tells me that this number of amendments linked together usually means that the legislation is in difficulty.

I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, here: if a clear link is established between pornography as we would generally describe it and child sex abuse, that is something we should seriously consider, even if that puts restrictions on other individuals. That is an objective criterion. If there is a criterion of "the common good", something about society on which we agree just for the good of society, that is also more objective. BUT TO LEGISLATE ON THE BASIS THAT THIS IS WHAT MOST PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE IS A RECIPE FOR TRANSIENT AND BAD LAW..

Lord Henley (Con)

Bearing in mind that the Government are anxious to save a bit of time on this Bill, when the Minister comes to respond he might want to take the amendment away, give it some further thought—possibly send it to a Select Committee, or whatever—and bring it back having done so.

.....he (Lord Hunt) might want to take the amendment away and bring it back on some other occasion after we have had some further thought about it and about how properly to define the mischief we are trying to address.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD)

...I wholly agree with what the right reverend Prelate said about the anxiety that the Government have not come up with the right answers.

The definition of an image in Clause 113(3) that the Government's amendment seeks to amend is not capable of improvement by the amendment the Government have advanced.

I also think that the Government have not succeeded in improving the language in respect to what is extreme. The issue of whether something is grossly offensive is treated as though it were objectively definable. The fact that something is grossly offensive to one person does not necessarily reflect the general view.

The provision is just badly thought out. THE WHOLE THING NEEDS TO BE TAKEN BACK AND WORKED ON AGAIN. WE WILL BE LEGISLATING IN HASTE IF WE ALLOW THIS TO PASS; AND WE COULD REGRET IT VERY MUCH AT LEISURE

Baroness Howe of Idlicote (Crossbench)

I join other noble Lords in their CONCERN THAT THIS IS STILL PART OF THE BILL.

One urges the Minister and the Government to think again.

We appreciate why the Government have tabled their amendments—they have seen the concern and have tried to remedy it—but THEY CERTAINLY DO NOT SATISFY ME. MORE PROBLEMS ARISE FROM THE PARTICULAR WORDS THAT HAVE BEEN USED. I therefore join other noble Lords in asking the Government to THINK AGAIN. This is too vital an area for us to allow it to be simply an add-on—yet another thing.

...I therefore VERY MUCH SUPPORT THE CALL FOR A RETHINK OF ALL THESE CLAUSES.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)

There is still a degree of uncertainty about what the criminal law will be. If we are indeed about to create a statutory offence with the potential for a serious term of imprisonment, we really need something that stands up to scrutiny much more than the terms of the clause. In his final remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said something about trying to determine what the mischief is. I tried to think who the potential victims of this crime are. Is it those who participate, because if actual events are being filmed, clearly a crime of serious assault will have been committed in any event? If it is simulated and if people are engaged in a consensual activity, it is stretching things a long way to suggest that people who are engaged in that kind of consensual activity, albeit in an activity that may be abhorrent to most if not all of us here, should be criminalised for that.

It is quite clear that in the case of child pornography, a child is incapable of giving consent. Therefore, it is only right that that is totally beyond the pale and is criminalised. We should tread very warily before we engage in criminalising something that is consensual. It would be very odd if a couple engaged in a consensual act which in itself would not be criminal but, if it was photographed, the possession of the photographs could be criminal. That seems to be going too far. On those who are perhaps viewing this material, again I have difficulty in accepting that that might be the case.

In introducing his amendments, the Minister made the point about how the Government are trying to bring the definitions more closely in line with the Obscene Publications Act. I note that Section 1(1) of the Act provides:

"For the purposes of this Act an article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it".

It has already been said in this debate that the type of people who are liable to see this are probably those who seek it out. It is very difficult to perceive, therefore, if one is trying to import the Obscene Publications Act, the type of people who are liable to see it and whether they would be victims of the crime intended to be created by this clause.

On whether the wider society could be the victims, my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer has indicated her concerns about the reference to the rapid evidence assessment referred to by the Minister. But it is equally the case that in the Government's consultation document on these proposals, both in the executive summary and on page 10, they acknowledge the question:

In the absence of conclusive research results as to its possible negative effects, do you think that there is some pornographic material which is so degrading, violent or aberrant that it should not be tolerated?

In their consultation document, the Government accept that the case is not made and that there has not been conclusive research to the effect that it has a negative effect on wider society.

Before we create this, we are entitled to ask who the victims are. As yet, I do not think that that question has been answered. Just because we may find the type of material abhorrent, that is very often the time when we should stop and pause. It is very easy to talk about defending liberties and freedom of expression when people are making comments about things that we most readily agree with. But, as the European Court of Human Rights said in the case of Müller v Switzerland,

it is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.

We should hesitate before we go down this road. I agree with Members of the Committee who have said that there will be other ways to address our concerns; perhaps a Joint Committee of both Houses could look at the evidence, or we could tackle more and engage more with the internet service providers. In the long run, that may be a more effective way of curbing this activity rather than trying to create an offence, which many Members of the Committee have said has many weaknesses in it.

Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)

If the offence—not of producing and distributing material of this sort but of simply possessing it, never mind whether you are looking at it—is to be punishable by three years' imprisonment, it is necessary to know precisely what the limits, boundaries and purpose of that offence are to be. The clause may have been drafted after consultation, as the Minister said, but IT IS CLEARLY HELD ALL AROUND THIS HOUSE TO BE UNSATISFACTORY. IT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AGAIN AND WITHDRAWN FROM THE BILL..

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)

I have already prayed in aid the rapid assessment (what?)

Lord Elystan-Morgan (Crossbench)

I very much doubt, with the greatest respect, whether the test, in so far as it is going to turn on the question of what the public in general feel is abhorrent, can be sustained.

The difficulty with abhorrence is that whereas most people would be able to agree absolutely where that line is in relation to honesty or dishonesty, people might have hundreds or thousands of different views about what exactly is abhorrent. To my mind the use of that word carries echoes of the Lady Chatterley trial, which must have been 50 years ago, and Mervyn Griffith-Jones, learned counsel for the Crown, exhorting the jury to consider whether that was the sort of disgraceful book they would allow their servants to read.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)

I have always argued that extreme pornography of this kind has to be accessed on the internet using credit cards. Why have the Government not thought of it as a course to dealing with it? They could approach credit card companies and say, "It is your responsibility to put a block on these sites, and when someone seeks to use their credit card for this extreme pornography, they cannot do it". Why are we not seeking to address it that way rather than introducing the problem of finding a criterion that does not fall foul of the problems raised in this debate?

Comment: What Problem?

Thanks to Alan, 12th March 2008

What disturbs me is the mindset even of those who quibble with the detail of the DPA. For instance, Lady Falkner refers to the problem of the dissemination of extreme pornography.

What problem? So far as I can see, no politician in either the Lords of the Comics has made the obvious point that it is just plain wrong to throw people in the slammer because you don't like the contents of their video cabinet or hard drive.

After an acrimonious debate in which the bogeyman of secularism was repeatedly invoked, the House of Lords on Wednesday accepted the amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill that abolishes the common law of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.

The amendment had originally been introduced by Lib Dem MP Dr Evan Harris in the House of Commons, but the Government had persuaded him to withdraw it after promising to introduce its own amendment later in the Lords. This it has now done with something less than enthusiasm.

The Bishops in the House were divided, some saying that the abolition was unnecessary and undesirable and others saying that it was inevitable and that the Church should therefore concede. The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, had agreed to the Government's amendment during a consultation, but expressed strong reservations about the timing of the move.

Prominent Christian activist Baroness O'Cathain launched a blistering attack on the amendment, with particular fury aimed at Evan Harris. Lady O'Cathain maintained that abolition of blasphemy would unleash a torrent of abuse towards Christians.

Lib Dem peer Lord Avebury pressurised the Government into keeping its word by tabling his own abolition amendment.

The Government had conducted a "short and sharp" consultation with the Church of England about the amendment, and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York both agreed not to oppose the abolition, although both questioned its timing.

Evan Harris said that this debate had been going on for 21 years, since the Law Commission had recommended abolition of the law, and for the Church it would never be the right time.
Lord Avebury also introduced other amendments to the Bill that would clear out some other ancient Church privileges, such as Section 2 of the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act of 1860, under which Peter Tatchell was charged when he interrupted a sermon by the-then Archbishop of Canterbury in Canterbury Cathedral. Lord Avebury's amendments were rejected by the Government and opposed by the bishops.

Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society pointed out that although the UK blasphemy laws are in the course of abolition, there is growing pressure in the Islamic world to outlaw so-called "religious defamation", a kind of super blasphemy law. This pressure is being applied at the United Nations and its Human Rights Council. He commented: "If the United Nations Human Rights Council succumbs to the pressure from the Islamic countries to permit laws against religious defamation, it will be a major blow to freedom of expression, which underpins both democracy and civilisation itself. Nations who cherish freedom should wake up to the dangers of such moves, rather than sit idly by as they have done so far."

The following amendment was passed by 148 to 87:

BARONESS ANDREWS

144B* Insert the following new Clause—
"Blasphemy and blasphemous libel
(1) The offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel under the common law of England and Wales are abolished.
(2) In section 1 of the Criminal Libel Act 1819 (60 Geo. 3 & 1 Geo. 4 c. 8) (orders for seizure of copies of blasphemous or seditious libel) the words "any blasphemous libel, or" are omitted.
(3) In sections 3 and 4 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888 (c. 64) (privileged matters) the words "blasphemous or" are omitted.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) (and the related repeals in Schedule 38) extend to England and Wales only."

The House of Lords committee recently debated the Dangerous Pictures clauses of the Criminal Injustice Bill.

The proposed law was widely condemned by most speakers but no useful amendments were moved. The Lords seemed to be particularly concerned that individuals could not be clear about whether they are breaking the law or not.

Alan points out that it is interesting that the Bishop of Chester is beginning to see to see the light and talk some sense about this daft proposal.

Particularly interesting as he's by no means at the liberal end of the theolological spectrum. In fact, if there was any part of the Criminal Injustice Bill about which I would have expected him to get aerated it was the "be nice to poofters" bit, in view of his earlier form.

Anyway, the Bishop of Chester contributed to the debate:

I would welcome a thorough look at the whole issue of what pornography is and its impact on our society. Clause 113(3), as amended by Amendment No. 122B, would state:

"An image is 'pornographic' if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal".

You can see that when you go into many newsagents in our society and look not just at the top shelf but at almost any shelf these days. Many of the soft porn films seem to have been produced precisely for that purpose.

The last thing we want to do is to produce an aura where everyone is a potential criminal. In one sense, we are and we need to acknowledge that, but that produces very negative reactions in the population. One can instance all sorts of ways in which that is the case. This whole area needs very careful examination not least in terms of whether there is any link between what is published and broadcast and crime. There are definitely imitative patterns of behaviour. There are the awful tragedies of the suicides in south Wales at the moment which is an illustration of how images can be created, as it were, and behaviour follows those images and is repeated. Sexual arousal is simply part and parcel of the whole of the creative world. When one looks at David Attenborough's series "Life on Earth", one sees that much of the depiction of the way in which the creative world operates is tied in with the reality of sexual arousal—let us be honest about it. If we are going to produce laws in this sort of area, they must carefully define what they are attempting to criminalise.

The clauses also seem to move between issues of violence and issues of pornography and sexual arousal. I know that they can often be linked, but I tend to think that they are often rather different. I think, from my own perspective, of the Christian faith, which has a violent image right at its heart: that of somebody being nailed to a cross. There are ways in which you could find portrayals of central features of the Christian faith covered by these clauses. Some people find them offensive; indeed, in one sense they are. There is such a deep subjectivity here that these things need careful consideration.

While I applaud the Government's attempt to get to grips with this issue, I share a feeling that things are not right. My brief experience in your Lordships' House tells me that this number of amendments linked together usually means that the legislation is in difficulty.

The House of Lords committee yesterday debated the Dangerous Pictures clauses of the Criminal Injustice Bill.

The proposed law was widely condemned by most speakers but no useful amendments were moved.

The Lords seemed to be particularly concerned that individuals could not be clear about whether they are breaking the law or not

However the Government agreed to have talks between now and the report stage. A tactic they have used before without actually resulting in any changes whatsoever

The time-honoured tradition of stodgy men arguing over things they know nothing about continued in England during last Friday's game censorship debate in the House of Commons, with MP Keith Vaz showing us how it's done while speaking in defense of Julian Brazier's bill to add a censorship level above the BBFC.

In comparing the interactivity of video games to movies, Vaz unleashed this little gem:

However, someone sitting at a computer playing a video game, or someone with one of those small devices that young people have these days, the name of which I forget, PlayStations or PSPs, something of that kind.

Well, whatever they are called, when people play these things, they can interact. They can shoot people; they can kill people. As the honourable Gentleman said, they can rape women.

The gentleman he is referring to is the bill's author Julian Brazier, though being completely off-base when quoting someone else doesn't excuse you from being off-base in the first place. The man can barely remember what these horribly offensive rape-machines are. When you have to struggle to remember what you were talking about in the first place it's probably a good indicator that you should sit down and shut up.

Luckily for British gamers, the House isn't completely full of uninformed idiots. Conservative MP Edward Vaizey actually took the time to check this claim out with the BBFC.

Is the honourable Gentleman aware of any video game that has as its intention the carrying out of rape or that allows the game player to carry out such an act? The BBFC and I are unaware of any such game.

Comment: A Mary Whitehouse experience

See also full article from Comment is Free by Alex Hilton

In his speech in parliament, Julian Brazier accused the film, Irreversible, of glamorising rape. It did no such thing. And while the film is extremely difficult to watch, you are left with a glimpse of how lives are destroyed by rape.

This is exactly why politicians should not set themselves up to be the arbiter of what the general population can and cannot watch on DVD and in the cinema. Politicians simply cannot be trusted to watch the films they would readily ban.

...Read the full article

Julian Brazier has failed in his bid to increase censorship of video games and films containing extreme violence.

Julian Brazier's plan would have allowed more appeals against BBFC rulings. He argued standards had been "watered down" and explicit films and games were fuelling a "tide of violence".

He was supported by several Tory and Labour MPs, but both front benches opposed it. The Lib Dems said it gave MPs undue influence over censorship.

Brazier's private member's bill failed when the debate ran out of time. Private member's bills allow individual MPs to introduce legislation on a subject of their choice.

Brazier's plan would have allowed an independent jury to reverse a ruling, if 50 MPs signed a Commons motion - even after the film or game was released. During a Commons debate, he cited the example of a previously banned video, SS Experiment Camp, which was re-examined by the BBFC and released in 2005. Another film, Irreversible, featured a nine-minute rape scene he said, adding: If this is not glamorising rape then it is difficult to imagine what would be.

His bill was supported by Labour MP Keith Vaz, who represents a seat in Leicester where the mother of murdered 14-year-old Stefan Pakeerah blamed his killer's obsession with the Manhunt video game - a view not supported by the trial judge.

Vaz said video games were different from films because they were "interactive": When they play with these things they are able to interact, they can shoot people, they can kill people, they can rape women and that's what is so wrong about the situation we have at the moment.

Another Labour MP, Stephen Pound, said there was a danger that in extremely violent films the sanctity of life becomes diluted, particularly when dealing with the young and impressionable.

Conservative MP John Whittingdale dismissed SS Experiment Camp as pretty tasteless and offensive but said scenes of sex and violence were mild compared to many mainstream films.
He said Mr Brazier's bill could do damage to the film industry and that the BBFC largely did a reasonably good job.

Lib Dem spokesman Don Foster suggested if MPs were to start signing a motion to get a title banned sales would absolutely rocket. I believe the proposals contained within this Bill would give politicians an undue and dangerous influence over these sorts of issues.

Culture Minister Margaret Hodge said the BBFC, while not getting it right every time did an extremely good job in incredibly difficult circumstances. She said the government had responded to concerns by asking Dr Tanya Byron to review whether more regulation to protect children was needed - due to report back next month. Urging MPs to await that report next month, she said legislation would not be effective on its own. Parents, internet service providers and others would also have to take responsibility.

She was still speaking as time ran out at 1430 GMT and the bill now stands no chance of becoming law.

Comment: Democracy Out of Time

From emark on SeeNoEvil

I'm wondering why this private member's bill on the single issue gets debated for five hours, but the entire CJIB has slightly less for its second reading, and there wasn't enough time for people to debate the extreme porn clauses at all in the 3rd reading!

Comment: Foolish Brazier

Thanks to Wynter

Mark Kermode successfully made Brazier look like a fool when he was interviewed on R5 Live on Friday afternoon.

Thanks to DarkAngel

Listen to the interview between Brazier and Kermode

Skip forward to the 2 hr mark, its only about 10 mins long, Brazier rehashes his tired old arguments that had only been debunked that morning, ie Manhunt being responsible for the death of a young lad, Mark Kermode rubbished his argument about films like Irreversible and pointed out to him that nobody knows more about classifying films than the BBFC who are already transparent and by allowing MP's or whoever to interfere wouldn't prevent these films from being released, it would just muddle up the classification process.

One thing Kermode should have rebuked was Braziers claims that rape and violence is going up as a direct result of the media. Which of course is nonsense!

Senior Anglican bishops have warned the Government that they have serious reservations about the abolition of the blasphemy laws.

Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu say in a letter today that the Government should not lightly change laws that, though their day-to-day importance may be small...BUT...nevertheless carry a significant symbolic charge.

While not opposing abolition, they urge caution and question why the Government is pushing through the change now.

The abolition of blasphemy from the statute books moved closer this week with the tabling of a Government amendment in the House of Lords. The Bill is scheduled for debate on Wednesday.

The Government had promised in January that this would take place after a “short and sharp” consultation with the churches.

In a letter to Communities Secretary Hazel Blears, the Archbishops say that the pressing need for repeal is not clear and plead for more time to to assess the impact of the new offence of incitement to religious hatred.

They call on the Government to be clear why the offences are being abolished and to spell out what the implications are for Christianity in relation to State and society: At a time of continuing debate about the nature of our society and its values, this change needs to be seen for what it is, namely the removal of what has long been recognised as unsatisfactory and not very workable offences in circumstances in which scurrilous attacks on the Christian religion no longer threaten the fabric of society. It should not be capable of interpretation as a secularising move, or as a general licence to attack or insult religious beliefs and believers.

From the National Secular Society

The Government amendment this week comes at a considerably earlier stage than had been expected as it is very unlikely that the consultation has been completed.

What appears to have happened is that the Government has been panicked into tabling its own amendment following a near identical one being tabled by Lord Avebury. Lord Avebury is a long-time secular campaigner.

The Government is determined that changes to blasphemy are made through their amendments, to give the appearance that they are in control.

See full article from Parliament

A few of the Criminal Injustice Bill amendments knocking around

BARONESS ANDREWS

144B* Insert the following new Clause—
"Blasphemy and blasphemous libel
(1) The offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel under the common law of England and Wales are abolished.
(2) In section 1 of the Criminal Libel Act 1819 (60 Geo. 3 & 1 Geo. 4 c. 8) (orders for seizure of copies of blasphemous or seditious libel) the words "any blasphemous libel, or" are omitted.
(3) In sections 3 and 4 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888 (c. 64) (privileged matters) the words "blasphemous or" are omitted.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) (and the related repeals in Schedule 38) extend to England and Wales only."


EARL OF ONSLOW
BARONESS STERN

145 Insert the following new Clause—
"Blasphemy
The offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel are abolished."

LORD AVEBURY

148 Insert the following new Clause—
"Abolition of certain religious offences
(1) The following offences are abolished—
(a) blasphemy and blasphemous libel;
(b) any distinct offence of disturbing a religious service or religious devotions;
(c) any religious offence of striking a person in a church or churchyard.
(2) The following provisions are repealed—
(a) in section 1 of the Criminal Libel Act 1819 (60 Geo. 3 & 1 Geo. 4 c. 8), the words "blasphemous libel, or";
(b) in sections 3 and 4 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888 (c. 64), the words "blasphemous or";
(c) section 59 of the Cemeteries Clauses Act 1847 (c. 65);
(d) section 2 of the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860 (c. 32);
(e) section 36 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100);
(f) section 7 of the Burial Laws Amendment Act 1880 (c. 41)."

MPs of the Commons culture, media and sport select committee asked industry experts about filtering and user content websites.

John Carr, the executive secretary of the Children's Charities Coalition for Internet Safety, said that the industry could not be expected to be some sort of "moral arbiters" or "priests" for the public, deciding which content should be screened.

In school the headteacher sets the standards surrounding internet content, Carr added. It should be the same in the home ... there is no way we can legislate from the centre. The public policy challenge is in helping parents to understand the internet and in turn help children. Parents feel at sea about what to do. Safety software should be pre-installed and set to a high level.

Asked what he thought of the idea, Matt Lambert, head of corporate affairs at Microsoft, admitted that internet content filtering technology already provided by the company as standard with its software products was "not widely used".

But Lambert rejected the idea of a mandatory setting of content filters to a high security level, arguing that it would block too much content that posed no risk to children. Lambert said a better solution would be for parents to be better educated about what their children are looking at online and what content filters are available. Setting [filtering controls] at a high level is the equivalent to blocking the internet ... it would be living in the dark ages in my view.

Stephen Carrick Davies, the chief executive of Childnet International, a charitable body that promotes online safety for children, told the committee that one problem with policing the internet is that the concept of harmful content is difficult to define, unlike obviously illegal content such as child abuse images: Illegal content is easy [to define and regulate] while harmful is difficult. We need to recognise there is 'grey'. There is black and white but also grey.

He also pointed out that legislation against such a "grey" area could result in curbs of freedom of expression and that in a web 2.0 world of user-generated content it can often be young people themselves - those often seen as "passive victims" - who can perpetrate cyber bullying online.

Davies suggested the answer might lie in a three-pronged approach. He said this strategy would involve self-regulation by the industry; empowering, supporting and educating schools; and making sure that parents help children so they are savvy enough and equipped just as how they are when they walk down the high street.

The BBFC has hit back at suggestions that it doesn't provide a more effective ratings system than the PEGI version, as suggested by Microsoft's UK head of corporate affairs Matt Lambert, at a CMS Select Committee hearing yesterday.

Speaking to GamesIndustry.biz the BBFC has rejected those claims, and stated that while the body uses the same symbols as for films in order to enable a greater understand of the level of content to be expected in games, it doesn't classify games in the same way that we classify films, because we physically play the game.

The fact is, we provide consumer advice about the content - and extended information - on our Parents website about exactly the sort of things you can expect to encounter in the game, in all of the games we classify - and we do it in words, which people understand, they don't understand the pictograms.

We know this - in January we did research and the public really couldn't get their heads around what a spider meant. That is not sufficient information for them to make a decision.

What people think about the PEGI system is that it's a difficulty rating, said the spokesperson. One of the parents in our research groups was complaining that she had bought a game with a 3+ on thinking it was suitable for her child, and it turned out to be a complicated sports game - whereas if they see a PG12, they know it's going to have the sort of content (and here you can argue that the system is similar) as they would expect from a 12-rated film.

Just like when they get a film that's an 18, and says 'Strong bloody violence' they have an idea of what that is, because they've seen it in 18-rated films…The fact is, sticking a spider on the back of a box is not going to help a person make the kind of decision that they ought to be making about games.

The BBFC also underlined that during its review process it employs people that actually plays through the games, and noted the contrast with the PEGI methodology.

Unlike the PEGI system, which is purely a tick-box system filled in by the distributor themselves, the BBFC has very well-qualified games examiners - who are games fans themselves - to play the games right through all the levels, with the cheat codes, and spend a lot of time playing them so that they know what the content is.

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee held its first oral evidence session as part of its inquiry into harmful content on 26th February 2008.

Videogame developers should dis-incentivise gamers from long periods of play by allowing players to achieve the highest scoring aspects of a title early on in the game's life cycle. That's according to John Carr, executive secretary at the Children's Charities Coalition for Internet Safety.

He raised the argument that there were a number of concerns over videogames, other than the issue of violence – including reports of children "dying at their consoles" – that need to be addressed.

While fellow panellist at the hearing Professor Sonia Livingstone, from the London School of Economics, pointed out that there is no clear evidence that videogames provide benefits to children, she also pointed out that there is no clear evidence that they harm children either - but there was evidence suggesting repetition of actions could be a problem.

Professor Livingstone also raised the subject of age ratings in games, and highlighted reports that large numbers of children played games at home that according to the ratings were not appropriate.

Carr then added his belief that some parents misunderstood the nature of age ratings, believing them to relate more to a general skill level suggestion, instead of advice on potentially damaging content.

The consensus among the panel was that parents needed more help and better tools to educate themselves and their children about the potential dangers online.

See full article from GamesIndustry.biz

Matt Lambert, Microsoft's head of corporate affairs in the UK, stated his belief that the PEGI ratings system was better than the BBFC version.

When committee chairman John Whittingdale asked Lambert about the apparent confusion for parents over age ratings for videogames – particularly the belief that they represented skill levels instead - Lambert replied that he hadn't seen any evidence of such confusion, and that internal research indicated that 96% of parents were in fact aware of the presence of age ratings.

Instead he pointed to anecdotal evidence which led him to believe parents instead weren't concerned about applying those ratings. And on the question of which of the two ratin