UK Parliament Watch

Luciana Berger, the shadow Minister for Public Health, has called for Twitter to totally ban the use of derogatory terms, regardless of the context. She said the website should ban racist words such as kike , (a derogatory term for Jews) which she claims can never be used in a non-derogatory way. A clearly bollox claim proven by her very own non-derogatory use of the term!

Berger said:

Online hate needs to be taken as seriously as offline hate -- but it isn't. Twitter's response isn't good enough. It has a responsibility to do more to protect its users. The site is letting me and many others down who have been the subject of lots of hate... It could start by proactively banning racist words which aren't allowed to printed in newspapers or broadcast on TV that could never be used in a positive way -- such as kike -- a derogative and anti-Semitic term for describing a Jew.

One has to have a little sympathy for her, as she was on the receiving end of torrents of insults over her being jewish, but that doesn't really justify people in authority from putting forward rubbish knee jerk policy ideas. Such ideas deserve, and require, robust criticism and ridicule.

Early day motion 605

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014 (S.I., 2014, No. 2916), dated 4 November 2014, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6 November, be annulled.

Primary sponsor: Julian Huppert
Sponsors: John Leech and Mike Hancock

Update: 2 more gallant liberals

12th December 2014.

Andrew George (St. Ives) and David Ward (Bradford East) are Lib Dems who have joined the role call of honour.

Update: Julian Huppert gets a positive write up in the Daily Mail

12th December 2014. See article from dailymail.co.uk

The Daily Mail writes:

Spanking and whipping should not be banned in British-made online porn videos, Lib Dem MPs have demanded. Backbench MP Julian Huppert attacked rules revealed last week which ban a host of erotic acts considered harmful by ministers.

The new laws aim to bring video-on-demand online porn into line with videos sold in licensed sex shops. It means around 10 acts - ranging from spanking to strangulation, aggressive whipping and being tied up -- are now banned from web porn sold in the UK.

Mr Huppert has tabled a Commons motion calling for the new rules -- laid down in the Audiovisual Media Services Regulation 2014 -- to be annulled. He said:

The new rules mean that all video-on-demand services that originate from the UK can't show various acts, such as spanking.

It seems to me to be very odd to say that this - assuming it is consensual - is acceptable for somebody to do in their own home, for them to photograph it, film it, but not to look at it online if it comes from the UK.

To me the case for banning things should be driven by issues around consent, and around genuine risk, not about whether we happen to like things or not.

Britain's surveillance laws, which have recently been used by the police to seize journalists's phone records in the Plebgate and Huhne cases, are not fit for purpose and need urgent reform, a Commons inquiry has found.

The Commons home affairs select committee says that the level of secrecy surrounding use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) allows the police to engage in acts which would be unacceptable in a democracy .

The committee chairman, Keith Vaz, said the surveillance law was not fit for purpose:

Using Ripa to access telephone records of journalists is wrong and this practice must cease. The inevitable consequence is that this deters whistleblowers from coming forward.

The MPs' inquiry followed claims by Sun and Daily Mail journalists that the Metropolitan and Kent police forces were secretly using the powers to trawl through thousands of phone numbers to detect their confidential sources in high-profile stories.

In response Home Office ministers have claimed they will revise the Ripa rules on communications data requests involving sensitive professions such as journalists and lawyers.

Emma Carr, director of Big Brother Watch, said:

When a senior Parliamentary Committee says that the current legislation is not fit for purpose, then this simply cannot be ignored. It is now abundantly clear that the law is out of date, the oversight is weak and the recording of how the powers are used is patchy at best. The public is right to expect better.

The conclusion of the Committee that the level of secrecy surrounding the use of these powers is permitting investigations that are deemed unacceptable in a democracy, should make the defenders of these powers sit up and take notice. At present, the inadequacy and inconsistency of the records being kept by public authorities regarding the use of these powers is woefully inadequate. New laws would not be required to correct this.

Whilst this report concentrates on targeting journalists, it is important to remember that thousands of members of the public have also been snooped on, with little opportunity for redress. If the police fail to use the existing powers correctly then it is completely irresponsible for the Home Office to be planning on increasing those powers.

Failure by the Government to address these serious points means we can already know that there will be many more innocent members of the public who will be wrongly spied on and accused. This is intolerable.

MPs on the Science and Technology select committee have called for the Government to draw up new guidelines for websites and apps explaining clearly how they use personal data, warning that laws will be needed if companies fail to comply.

Facebook can gain direct access to a person's mobile and take pictures or make videos at any time without explicit consent, MPs warn as they call on social media companies to simplify their terms and conditions.

The MP said that they should simplify the conditions of using their services, which are designed for US courts, because they are so impenetrable that no reasonable person can be expected to understand them.

The MPs on the Science and Technology select committee called for the Government to draw up new guidelines for websites and apps explaining clearly how they use personal data, warning that laws will be needed if companies fail to comply.

The committee highlighted terms for Facebook Messenger's mobile app, used by more than 200,000 million people a month, that means it can gain direct access to a mobile or tablet, including to take pictures or make videos, at any time without explicit confirmation from the owner.

The Consumer Rights Bill is progressing through Parliament is currently at the report stage in the house of Lords. It will next be debated on 24th November.

Elspeth Howe has again proposed her clause requiring age verification for adult content. It has been kicked out several times in the past as the government recognises the need to work with the telecoms industry rather than impose onerous new laws (of course the government hasn't shown the same pragmatic approach to the adult internet industry).

The new clause was proposed by Baroness Elspeth Howe, Baroness King, Lord Cormack and Baroness Floella Benjamin. It is titled amendment 50D.

"Duty to provide an internet service that protects children from digital content

(1) Internet service providers must provide to subscribers an internet access service which excludes adult content unless all the conditions of subsection (3) have been fulfilled.

(2) Where mobile telephone operators provide a telephone service to subscribers which includes an internet access service, they must ensure this service excludes adult content unless all the conditions of subsection (3) have been fulfilled.

(3) The conditions are--

(a) the subscriber "opts-in" to subscribe to a service that includes adult content;

(b) the subscriber is aged 18 or over; and

(c) the provider of the service has an age verification policy which meets the standards set out by OFCOM in subsection (4) and which has been used to confirm that the subscriber is aged 18 or over before a user is able to access adult content.

(4) It shall be the duty of OFCOM, to set, and from time to time to review and revise, standards for the--

(a) filtering of adult content in line with the standards set out in section 319 of the Communications Act 2003 (OFCOM's standards code);

(b) age verification policies to be used under subsection (3) before a user is able to access adult content; and

(c) filtering of content by age or subject category by providers of internet access services and mobile phone operators.

(5) The standards set out by OFCOM under subsection (4) must be contained in one or more codes.

(6) Before setting standards under subsection (5), OFCOM must publish, in such a manner as they think fit, a draft of the proposed code containing those standards.

(7) After publishing the draft code and before setting the standards, OFCOM must consult relevant persons and organisations.

(8) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish procedures for the handling and resolution of complaints in a timely manner about the observance of standards set under subsection (4), including complaints about incorrect filtering of content.

(9) OFCOM may designate any body corporate to carry out its duties under this section in whole or in part.

(10) OFCOM may not designate a body under subsection (9) unless, as respects that designation, they are satisfied that the body--

(a) is a fit and proper body to be designated;

(b) has consented to being designated;

(c) has access to financial resources that are adequate to ensure the effective performance of its functions under this section; and

(d) is sufficiently independent of providers of internet access services and mobile phone operators.

(11) In this section, internet service providers and mobile telephone operators shall at all times be held harmless of any claims or proceedings, whether civil or criminal, providing that at the relevant time, the internet access provider or the mobile telephone operator--

(a) was following the standards and code set out by OFCOM in subsection (4); and

(b) acting in good faith.

(12) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in subsections (1) and (2) prevents providers of internet access services and mobile phone operators from providing additional levels of filtering content.

(13) In this section--

"adult content" means an internet access service that contains harmful and offensive materials from which persons under the age of eighteen are protected;

"harmful and offensive materials" has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Communications Act 2003 (general duties of OFCOM);

"material from which persons under the age of eighteen are protected" means material specified in the OFCOM standards under section 319(2)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 (OFCOM's standards code);

"opts-in" means a subscriber notifies the service provider of his or her consent to subscribe to a service that includes adult content."

Update: Howe's amendment thrown out

27th November 2014. See article from parliament.uk . Thanks to Therumbler

Elspeth Howe's new clause was defeated by 124 votes to 64. Labour supported the bill, while most, but not all, Tories and LibDems opposed it.

There are strict censorship guidelines on how broadcasters can, and cannot, use Parliamentary footage to reflect what goes on in the Commons and the Lords.

News programmes, such as the Daily Politics , may use clips under certain conditions, but these rules also ban the likes of Have I Got News for You and entertainment programmes from using them to mock Parliamentarians and Westminster life.

In a personal film, the writer and former Labour Parliamentary candidate John O'Farrell explained why he is not impressed with the rules, and why he thinks they need to be changed.

O'Farrell debated this on Thursday's Daily Politics on BBC2. See programme on iPlayer

The new clause extending the Dangerous Pictures Act to cover rape porn has passed through the House of Lords. The next step is the Ping Pong stage where the House of Commons debates House of Lords amendments which do not effect the Dangerous Pictures clauses. This stage will occur on 1st December 2014.

The existing Dangerous Pictures Act may be summarised:

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Section 63 Possession of extreme pornographic images:

It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image.

An extreme pornographic image is an image which meets all of the following three definitions

1. is pornographic , ie 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.
   
2. is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
   
3. it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following---

• (a) an act which threatens a person's life,
• (b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals,
• (c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
• (d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive), and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

The Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will extend the list. The list of image types above, ie life threatening act, serious injury, necrophilia, or bestiality is extended by:

37 Possession of pornographic images of rape and assault by penetration

(7A) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, either of the following---

(a) an act which involves the non-consensual penetration of a person's vagina, anus or mouth by another with the other person's penis, or

(b) an act which involves the non-consensual sexual penetration of a person's vagina or anus by another with a part of the other person's body or anything else,

and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that 30the persons were real.

(7B) For the purposes of subsection (7A)---

(a) penetration is a continuing act from entry to withdrawal;

(b) vagina includes vulva.

The new clause will apply only in England and Wales. Scotland has its own version of the Dangerous Pictures Act that already includes rape porn. Northern Ireland seems to have been omitted, maybe it will enact its own version later.