UK News

When shop owner Lucy Wilkes decided on a window display for her business, she knew it would ruffle a few feathers. Two vintage, kitsch chairs, standing side-by-side, one decorated in pages from Playboy featuring nude women.

However, even she was astonished at the level of controversy the display attracted among visitors to her shop The Print Room, in Lewes, East Sussex. She was stunned when police ordered her to remove one of the offending items after a customer complained that it was obscene .

Clearly ignorant policemen claimed to Wilkes her vintage furniture contravened the Obscene Publications Act because it is decorated with 1950s Playboy magazines, which features images of topless women. Perhaps the police would have been better advised to cite the Indecent Displays Act or the more usual Public Order Act. It seems the police involved are in need of a little basic legal training.

The astonished retailer was forced to hide the seat at the back of her shop and has now draped it with a public health warning. The ironic sign reads: This chair has been deemed inappropriate for public view. Please take care.

Designer Laura Diez, who made the chair, insisted her creation was tasteful . She said: I can't believe anyone in their right mind could actually be offended by this. I used 1950s Playboys which are no more scandalous than the front cover of some men's magazines which are on show in any newsagents.

A Sussex Police spokeswoman said: Police attended a Lewes shop following a complaint from a member of the public regarding an item that was on display in the shop window. The member of public was offended by the images displayed on a chair and the shop owner was politely asked by police to remove it from public view, which he voluntarily did.

Press TV have issued another propaganda peice suggesting that Ofcom are set to ban the satellite channel from broadcasting with a UK licence.

Press TV writes in a website posting:

London has spared no effort in its two-year-long battle against Press TV. Its media tool, Ofcom, is now about to revoke the channel's broadcast license, hoping this desperate measure will silence criticism.

And in a coincidently timed piece, the Wall Street Journal points out that Iran is regularly jamming BBC programmes targeted at Iran:

As uprisings rolled across the Middle East this year, Iran stepped up its jamming of the BBC, Voice of America and other Western networks with Persian-language news channels. The move is intended to prevent Iranian audiences from seeing foreign broadcasts the Iranian government finds objectionable, five networks protested in a joint statement this month.

Some 45% to 60% of Iranians watch satellite TV, according to estimates from the state media company and an Iranian research center, exceeding the number believed to use the Internet. Iran so far seems to be winning a struggle to filter out unwanted TV content and broadcast its own propaganda: The country jams channels like the BBC on Western satellites even as Iran's state media company broadcasts pro-government news on some of the same satellites, and at times has aired forced confessions of political detainees.

Iran is having it both ways, said a U.S. State Department official. While they benefit from the international community's respect for 'freedom of expression' and 'freedom of the airwaves,' they deny that same right to their own citizens, aggressively jamming Persian-language broadcasts from other countries.

The music industry's parental advisory scheme has been extended to explicit content in music and video downloads.

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) scheme has applied to physical music and video since 1995, with logos attached to material deemed offensive or inappropriate for children.

The logo now signposts unsuitable files on sites including iTunes and Amazon.

The updated scheme states that UK digital music retailers and streaming services use the Parental Advisory logo or the word explicit alongside files that could be considered unsuitable.

The BPI said that while some sites already flagged up explicit content, the scheme, introduced on Tuesday, would provide consistent labelling.

Sky Broadband has begun blocking Newzbin2 after receiving a court order telling it to do so.

The ISP is the second major internet provider to block access to the Usenet indexing website, after BT started doing so around the end of October. However, major rivals TalkTalk and Virgin Media said that they have received no such court order themselves, and are not blocking the site.

We have received a court order requiring us to block access to this illegal website, which we did on 13 December, Sky said in a statement: Moving forward, as and when clear and legally robust evidence of copyright theft is presented, we will take appropriate action in respect to site blocking, which will include complying with court orders.

The European branch of the Motion Picture Association (MPA) representing Walt Disney, Paramount, Sony, 20th Century Fox, Universal and Warner Brothers won a court order in July that forced BT to block access to Newzbin2. In early November, shortly after BT began blocking Newzbin, the MPA sent letters to all the major ISPs, saying the organisation intended to seek similar court orders and asking whether the ISPs intended to fight against this move.

The MPA has also gone to BT to seek a block of the Pirate Bay file-sharing website, but BT has said it will not institute further blocks without a court order for each case.

Nominet has been suspending domain names at the mere request of law enforcement agencies, without a fair trial. While most of these sites have been dodgy, some should not have been removed. This loophole in the justice system could be exploited and mistakes are inevitable, leading to deliberate or accidental censorship.

Despite ORG's demands that transparency and evidence remain the foundation of any policy, law enforcement agencies have refused to budge. They say they lack the resources and powers to use the courts.

ORG, ISPA and LINX all announced that they were unable to support the initial Nominet Issue Group statement. It is incredibly important for justice to be transparent and open to all.

Nominet have asked the Issue group for a further meeting, where ORG will explain why using the courts is a vital safeguard.

Search engines asked to help with copyright censorship

In addition to the discussions about a new, faster website censorship plan, Ed Vaizey is now also hosting roundtables between copyright owners and search engines. The aim is to tell search engines to do more to stop infringement by blocking, promoting or demoting certain sites.

Just like previous discussions about website censorship, these proposals have no basis in evidence, come seemingly at the say so of rights-holders, with no involvement from civil society. We're urgently looking to tell DCMS why private policing of the Internet is a bad idea.

We have been invited to the next round of discussions: tomorrow, with minister Ed Vaizey. This is a big win for you and ORG. Now we can try to open the process up to everyone.

In the dying days of the Thatcher government illegal raves attracted thousands of revellers to tranquil rural areas, where they enjoyed dancing the night away.

In a desperate bit to retain censorship control of live music, councils are trying to invoke public fears about raves a shock tactic to defend their licensing powers that have been used to suffocate the British live music scene.

Councils have cynically warned that plans to lift regulations on live entertainments will leave local residents powerless to silence raves and other music events, leading to a noise nuisance free-for-all . A London local authority has even warned the reforms will make it harder to silence the Notting Hill carnival.

Under current rules anyone holding an event judged to be a live entertainment is obliged to apply and even pay hundreds of pounds for a license from their local authority.

But John Penrose, the tourism minister, has realised that these rules are pointless bureaucracy , especially as the rules are even applied to school plays, folk duos and even Punch and Judy shows.

Ministers are consulting on plans to free any event with an attendance of less than 5,000 people from needing a license. They hope this will make it easier for local communities to hold fetes and street parties.

But local authorities have written to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport warning that the change will lead to a noise nuisance free-for-all .

Councillor Chris White of the Local Government Box Tickers Association, which represent 350 councils, said:

These proposals go too far.

In its intention to cut red tape and box-ticking for village fetes, school concerts and amateur plays, this will inadvertently be giving carte blanche for noisy parties, concerts and all night raves attended by thousands.

A Labour councillor is under investigation after posting a string of silly comments on Twitter, including remarks about the attractiveness of his female opponents.

In one silly tweet, Julian Swainson, the Labour group leader on Waveney District Council in Suffolk, said: It reminds me of the council chamber game "Who would you shag if you had to?" looking at the opposing benches.

Another warned David Cameron that he might want to be careful in case he became the victim of a lynch mob like former Libyan dictator Colonel Gaddafi.

Last night, the Tories sent a formal letter of complaint to Labour leader Ed Miliband, ludicrously arguing that the communications were so grossly offensive that Swainson could have broken the law.

Swainson's messages on the social networking site included attacks on Tory MP Nadine Dorries, a description of the Tories as evil bastards, the Dark Ages party and a semi-pornographic reference to Santa Claus. He also described Tory MP Robert Halfon as the Halfwit for Harlow , made baseless innuendos about the Prime Minister and littered tweets with expletives.

BBC world news Pakistan's cable TV association has taken BBC World News off air after screening of a documentary that it deemed anti-Pakistan.

The BBC's World News has been taken off the air in Pakistan after broadcasting a documentary that was deemed to be critical of the country. Secret Pakistan explored accusations by CIA officials and western diplomats that Pakistan was failing to meet its commitments in the war on terror .

Khalid Arain, president of the country's cable TV association, said operators had blocked the BBC service as a result.

The BBC condemned the decision. A spokesman said:

We are deeply concerned that BBC World News has been taken off air by the Cable Association of Pakistan.

We condemn any action that threatens our editorial independence and prevents audiences from accessing our impartial international news service. We would urge that BBC World News and other international news services are reinstated as soon as possible.

Update: Summoned

1st December 2011. See  article from  google.com

Pakistan has said that it was looking at summoning the BBC to demand an explanation over a documentary about the Taliban that has left the BBC World News channel blocked nationwide. Cable operators pulled the channel late Tuesday amid anger over NATO air strikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

Khalid Arain, chairman of the Cable Operators Association of Pakistan, confirmed that BBC World News was off-air nationwide and that other Western news channels had been ordered not to indulge in anti-Pakistan propaganda . [That's ok ,there's easily enough anti-Pakistan truth to fill the schedules].

Pakistan's media regulator, PEMRA, said via a spokesman: The authorities can summon BBC representatives and seek an explanation from them. Pakistan was not legally bound to show any foreign channels and was also monitoring Britain's Sky News for any objectionable content.

Update: BBC Called in from the Cold

3rd February 2012.  See  article from  bbc.co.uk

The Pakistani Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, has said he wants to see BBC World News back on cable television in his country after the recent ban.

He told the BBC at the World Economic Forum in Davos that he was absolutely in favour of giving more freedom to the media. We definitely... want the BBC to be operating in Pakistan.

British film director Ken Russell, who was Oscar-nominated for his 1969 film Women In Love , has died at the age of 84. His son, Alex, said he died peacefully in his sleep in a hospital on Sunday.

During his career, he became known for his controversial films including Women In Love, which featured Oliver Reed and Alan Bates wrestling nude. He also directed the infamous religious drama The Devils and The Who's rock opera, Tommy , in 1975.

Russell frequently crossed swords with the film censors at the BBFC who took issue with Billion Dollar Brain , Women in Love, The Devils, and Crimes of Passion.

The Devils

Perhaps a suitable Melon Farming tribute is a summary of Russell's strength of character in pushing through his outrageous vision for The Devils. He was up against the BBFC, his own distributors and the British establishment.

The Devils was first seen by the BBFC in an unfinished rough cut on 27 January 1971. At around the same time, this rough cut was also shown to senior executives from Warner Brothers, the film's distributor. Both the BBFC and Warners expressed strong reservations about the strong religious and sexual context of the film, which seemed likely to provoke significant controversy. Warners and the BBFC therefore drew up separate lists of the cuts they would require before the film could be distributed in the UK. Warners were content with their own plus the additional cuts requested by the BBFC and a full list of required changes was forwarded to the director.

The cuts were intended to reduce:

• (i) the explicitness and duration of certain sexual elements, including an orgy of nuns
• (ii) elements of violence and gore during an interrogation scene and the final burning of the character played by Oliver Reed
• (iii) scenes that mixed sexual activity and religion in a potentially inflammatory fashion.

A modified - but still technically unfinished - version of the film was seen again by the BBFC on 8 April 1971, incorporating many (but not all) of the cuts requested by both the BBFC and by Warners. Ken Russell had toned down or removed what had been regarded as the most difficult scenes, including the entire Rape of Christ sequence in which a group of nuns cavort on a crucifix, whilst hoping that the significant reductions he had already made would perhaps allow certain other shots to remain. The BBFC requested further reductions in four sequences. Russell responded by complying fully with three of the cuts but insisted that the fourth additional cut could not be made properly because it would create continuity problems.

On 18 May 1971 the BBFC awarded an X certificate to the cut version of the film. Because of the scale of the changes made to the film (including the deletion of one entire scene) it is difficult to calculate accurately how much was removed from the film between January and May 1971. However, it is safe to say that several minutes were removed.

The resultant version suffered cuts as follows:

• A scene showing nuns assaulting an effigy of the cross was deleted (approximately 30s)
• An enema scene loses some details
• The crushing of Grandier's legs loses details.
• Grandier's tongue torture loses details
• Shots of a priest being assaulted by nuns after the King's visit are missing
• Jeanne masturbating with a chard bone was cut
• Whippings scenes throughout were removed

A Timely Tribute to Ken Russell. The BFI re-release of his Masterpiece, The Devils

See article from criterionforum.org

After much arm-twisting the BFI has indeed persuaded Warner Bros to let them handle The Devils, and a packed two-disc lovingly-curated special edition will be out next March.

I'll get the bad news out of the way right now: as already spotted, it's DVD only, and it's the 1971 British theatrical cut, not the 2004 restoration. Since BFI DVD Publishing is demonstrably run by Blu-ray evangelists and has a policy of sourcing the longest available version of the films they put out, you probably don't need to live at 221B Baker Street to work out the reasons for this.

But that really does appear to be all the bad news. I've seen the full specs, and it looks like an absolute blinder of a release - and hopefully all will be revealed in a matter of days.

UK 2012 BFI R2 DVD at UK Amazon for release on 19th march 2012

The Government has published its new Cyber Security Strategy, setting out how the UK will support economic prosperity, protect national security and safeguard the public's way of life by building a more trusted and resilient digital environment.

Around 6% of the UK's GDP is generated by the internet and is set to grow -- making it a larger sector than either utilities or agriculture -- with the internet boom predicted to create 365,000 jobs over the next five years . We want to create new opportunities for businesses and help build a thriving cyber security industry.

But our increasing dependence on digital technologies has given rise to new risks. For example, there are more than 20,000 malicious emails on Government networks each month, 1,000 of which are deliberately targeted.

Summary of some of the key actions in the strategy:

Pioneering a joint public/private sector cyber security hub : This will allow the Government and the private sector to exchange actionable information on cyber threats and manage the response to cyber attacks. A pilot will begin in December with five business sectors - defence, telecoms, finance, pharmaceuticals and energy.

On tackling cyber crime, the strategy sets out commitments to:

Expand the use of cyber-Specials to help the police tackle cyber crime : The Metropolitan Police's Police Central e-crime Unit (PCeU) has been making use of Police Specials with relevant specialist skills to help tackle cyber crime. We will encourage all police forces to make use of cyber-Specials . We will involve people from outside law enforcement to help tackle cyber crime as part of the NCA cyber crime unit.

Create a cyber crime unit within the National Crime Agency by 2013 : The unit will help deal with the most serious national-level cyber crime and to be part of the response to major national incidents. It will draw together the work of the e-crime unit in SOCA and PCeU and provide support to all elements of the NCA, and all police forces.

Encourage the police and the courts to make more use of existing cyber sanctions for cyber offences : Additional powers are already available when there is strong reason to believe someone is likely to commit further serious cyber crime offences. For example, a range of terms -- including restriction on access to the internet and prohibition from using instant messaging services -- have been used to restrict the ability of organised criminals to commit online fraud. We will publish new guidance aimed at increasing the use of cyber sanctions for cyber offences.

Make it easier to report financially motivated cyber crime by establishing a single reporting system for businesses and the public : Action Fraud -- the national fraud reporting and advice centre run by the National Fraud Authority -- will become the central portal for reporting any financially motivated cyber crime.

On prevention and raising public awareness, the strategy sets out commitments to:

Bolster the role of Get Safe Online : Everyone has a crucial role to play in keeping cyberspace safe, including the public. Get Safe Online already provides independent, trustworthy advice on staying safe on the internet. We are increasing our investment to make Get Safe Online the single, authoritative place to go for the public to get the latest information on internet threats and the simple steps they can take to protect themselves.

Develop kitemarks for cyber security software: This will help consumers and businesses navigate the range of cyber security solutions available, allowing them to make more informed choices and avoid unnecessary scareware .

The decision by the Court of Appeal to overturn the public order conviction of a young suspect who repeatedly said 'fuck' while being searched for drugs, was described as unacceptable by police representatives last night. They claimed the ruling would undermine respect for officers. [They probably meant undermining 'fear' of officers ,who can currently hand out their own brand of 'justice' using the Public Order Act'].

Overturning Denzel Cassius Harvey's conviction, Mr Justice Bean said officers were so regularly on the receiving end of the rather commonplace expletive that it was unlikely to cause them harassment, alarm or distress .

Harvey was fined £ 50 for using strong language while they attempted to search him for cannabis in Hackney, east London. He told officers:

Fuck this man. I ain't been smoking nothing. When the search revealed no drugs, he continued: Told you, you wouldn't find fuck all. Asked whether he had a middle name, he replied: No, I've already fucking told you so.

Magistrates at Thames Youth Court found him guilty in March last year after hearing that Harvey's expletives were uttered in a public area while a group of teenage bystanders gathered around.

Appealing against his conviction, Harvey claimed that none of those within earshot, especially the two hardened police officers, would have been upset by his swearing.

Mr Justice Bean agreed that the expletives he used were heard

all too frequently by officers on duty and were unlikely to have greatly disturbed them. The judge added that it was quite impossible to infer that the group of young people who were in the vicinity were likely to have experienced alarm or distress at hearing these rather commonplace swear words used.

Peter Smyth, the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said:

If judges are going to say you can swear at police then everyone is going to start doing it. I'm not saying that police officers are going to go and hide in the corner and cry if someone tells them to 'F' off, but verbal abuse is not acceptable and this is the wrong message to be sending out.

Nominet is consulting and developing its procedures for taking down internet .uk domains when presented with claims of them being used illegally.

Under the latest changes, Nominet will be able to deny a site suspension request unless police provide a court order or the site is accused of putting the public at serious risk.

Early draft recommendations came in for criticism because police would be able to instruct Nominet to take down unlimited numbers of domains without a court order. Following previous coverage, many El Reg readers were outraged that the proposals didn't seem to do enough to protect ordinary .uk owners from over-zealous cops.

The new draft recommendations state that should a suspension notice be objected to by a domain's registrant, Nominet would be able to consult an independent expert , likely an outside lawyer, before deciding whether to ask police for a court order.

A new revision also draws a distinction between serious cases of botnets, phishing and fake pharmaceuticals sales, which pose an imminent risk to internet users, and cases of counterfeiting, which are perhaps not as risky.

Nominet would draw a distinction between the two scenarios. If it received a suspension request relating to a low risk crime, such as alleged counterfeiting, it would have to inform the registrant, giving them an opportunity to object and/or rectify the problem, before it suspended the domain name.

The policy has stated in all drafts that it would not be applicable to private complainants, such as intellectual property interests, and that hasn't changed. We're excluding all civil disputes, Blowers said. If the MPAA [for example] wanted to bring down 25,000 domains associated with online piracy, that would fall outside of this process.

The policy has also been tweaked with respect to free speech issues. To take down an overtly racist or egregiously pornographic site, Nominet would not suspend the domain name without a court order.

The recommendations are still in draft form but it is intended that the final version will be implemented early in 2012.

Update: LINX Concerns

29th November 2011. See  article from  theregister.co.uk

A spokesperson for LINX, representing ISPs said that the organisation fears social networks, online auction houses and similar sites could be unfairly taken down by cops if their users upload dodgy material. Its statement reads:

A domain owner should be allowed to defend themselves in court. We are also concerned that the law enforcement agencies' proposal does not limit suspension to domains where the domain owner had criminal intent itself: this could place at risk any domain with user-generated content, such as auction sites and social networking.

LINX members are committed to helping the police combat criminal behaviour online, but all such action needs to be balanced and proportionate, and respect the property rights of legitimate businesses. We would welcome suspension of domains held by criminal enterprises, but to protect the innocent suspension should be ordered by a court.

Update: Further Consultations

30th June 2012. See  article from  publicaffairs.linx.net

Nominet will conduct a further round of public consultation before implementing a policy for dealing with domains associated with criminal activity. The Nominet Board communique states:

Further research and legal advice was presented in relation to the ongoing policy development for dealing with domain names associated with criminal activity. The Board agreed to conduct a public consultation prior to implementing the final recommendations.

Tory-run Barnet Council made a complaint against a local blogger that, if set as precedent, could criminalise the work of citizen journalist/bloggers across the country.

The council has already been criticised in the past for trying to restrict local bloggers from reporting on its activities. It recently went a step further by reporting a blogger critical of its activities to the Information Commissioner, arguing it had to register as a Data Controller in order to carry on monitoring its activities.

Derek Dishman writes at the Mr Mustard blog on issues relating to Barnet Council. He regularly makes FOI requests and recently discovered the council had appointed change and innovation manager , Jonathan Tunde-Wright, for around £ 50,000 a year. The job description included phrases like delivery of system thinking interventions . The appointment was justifiably ridiculed.

As a result the Council complained to the Information Commissioner that Dishman had broken the law (worth a £ 5000 fine) because he had processed personal data unfairly and had no protection under the Data Protection Act.

The Information Commissioner rejected that. So Barnet Council came up with another wheeze

Journalist David Hencke, who uncovered the story, explains what happened next:

Initially rebuffed the council then came up with an extraordinary description of what Mr Dishman was allowed to blog without being forced to register or be prosecuted for unfairly processing data.

According to Barnet the only things bloggers can write about is their own personal data, their own family defined as people related by blood or marriage and their own household, anybody living in their house or flat.

Everything else requires registration and can be subject to legal challenge.

Imagine that! Such a restriction would put nearly every blog in the country out of business.

Thankfully, the Information Commissioner rejected that definition by Barnet Council too.

David Hencke adds:

If Barnet had succeeded it would have had enormous implications and costs for bloggers across the country. As Conservatives who are committed to transparency, the council should know better. They need to put up and shut up!

Striptease artist Phyllis Dixey's revues at the Whitehall Theatre in London were legendary, circa 1940. She was a pioneering performer whose daring routine pushed back the boundaries of public decency in 1940s Britain.

But a plan to honour Phyllis Dixey, the first stripper to appear in London's West End, with an English Heritage blue plaque has met with resistance from pathetic whingers that personify middle England.

English Heritage wants to place the plaque outside Dixey's former home in an art deco mansion block in Surbiton. However, the plan has run into opposition from residents of Wentworth Court concerned about the attention the plaque would bring to the building.

Dixey, a music hall entertainer, lived in the block during the late 1930s, just before she found fame as the Queen of Striptease . Her early shows attracted the attentions of police and authorities but were eventually tolerated and her performances at the Whitehall Theatre became a fixture of wartime and post-war London.

The wording of the proposed plaque is: Phyllis Dixey 1914 to 1964, Striptease Artiste lived here in flat number 15.

English Heritage has contacted all residents in the block to get permission, but they have so far refused to grant it.

The residents' association has suggested to English Heritage a different form of words, such as burlesque dancer - but its request has been turned down, on the grounds that burlesque describes an American tradition.

Nigel Bruce, the head of the residents' association, said: Eyebrows were raised when it was discussed at the AGM. Part of the concern was the title that they were thinking of putting on the plaque. It would certainly raise the eyebrows of passers-by. He added: We have asked if there is any other wording we could have in its place.

One resident opposed to the plaque said: The word striptease leads you to a certain visual image. I know that is her history ...BUT... I would want it to be said in the nicest way possible. People would go 'It's the stripper building.'

Dixey's family are also opposed to the plan, saying the current wording gives a unfortunate impression of their relative. They are also calling for English Heritage to change the wording.

Oliver Dixey, whose grandfather was the dancer's brother, said: It has upset some of the family. To be fair, she was a stripper. There are no bones about it. ...BUT... we would prefer for her to be called a fan dancer.

English Heritage's blue plaques panel, which includes Stephen Fry, the broadcaster, shows no signs of backing down. Minutes from a meeting say: Having revisited the various options, the team remained confident that the original proposed inscription offered the most accurate description of Dixey's occupation and should be retained.

BT has started blocking Newzbin 2 as ordered by a UK court.

Newzbin 2 is a members-only site which indexes material shared in Usenet discussion forums. The site is being blocked via legal actions of the Motion Picture Association, who managed to get the UK court to block the site.

We've heard that the British Telecom censorship of the free web has begun, the group behind Newzbin 2 told the BBC. It also said that 93.5% of its active UK users have downloaded workaround software developed by them to bypass the block. The group would not divulge how it worked.

Newzbin2 shall go on, its users shall continue to access the site and its facilities, the Newzbin team told the BBC. Nothing has changed and they [the MPA] have no change after paying millions of dollars in legal fees.

Update: Inevitable clamour for more blocking

18th November 2011. Based on article from out-law.com

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) has asked two UK internet service providers (ISPs) to consent to a court order that would force them to block their customers' access to a copyright-infringing website.

A ZDNet report said the MPA told it that it had sent letters to Virgin Media and TalkTalk referring to the recent order by Mr Justice Arnold and asked the major UK ISPs whether they would consent to a court order requiring them to impede subscriber access to the Newzbin2 website .

TalkTalk said in a statement:  We are considering our position since there are some objectionable elements to the proposed injunction. We will only block access to a website if ordered to do so by a court. .

Virgin Media also confirmed that it had received MPA's letter and that it would only act on receipt of a court order. A Virgin Media spokesperson said in a statement: As a responsible ISP, we will comply with any court order addressed to us but strongly believe such deterrents need to be accompanied by compelling legal alternatives, such as our agreement with Spotify, which give consumers access to content at the right price.

The government is to change the tax rules that have allowed retailers to avoid paying VAT by sending goods from the Channel Islands.

Low Value Consignment Relief (LVCR) will not apply to goods sent from the Channel Islands to the UK from 1st April 2012.

The tax relief has been used increasingly in recent years by companies selling CDs and DVDs online, such as Play.com, Tesco and Amazon. The government said the relief was now costing £ 140m a year.

The maximum price of the goods allowed under LVCR was cut from £ 18 to £ 15 on 1 November following an announcement in the Budget in March.

These reforms will ensure that UK companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, can compete on a level playing field with those larger companies with the resources to set up operations in the Channel Islands, said David Gauke, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury.

LVCR was originally established as a VAT exemption for goods coming from outside the EU. The idea was to prevent EU members having to collect small amounts of VAT, when collecting it would cost more than it was worth. The issue has been that the Channel Islands are treated as being outside the EU for VAT purposes.

The government said that LVCR will continue to apply to goods coming from other countries outside the EU.

Jersey's Economic Development Minister, Senator Alan Maclean, said more than 1,700 people were employed in the fulfilment industry across the Channel Islands.

Scottish comedian Limmy has backtracked over a series of aggressive Tweets against Margaret Thatcher and the Royal Family, after they sparked calls for him to be sacked by the BBC.

The comic, real name Brian Limond, said: I have deleted my tweets, and I'd like to apologise for any offence caused. It is never my intention to offend.

His Twitter rant started with a comment on William urging FIFA to relax its ban on the England football team wearing Remembrance Day Poppies. He tweeted: Would Prince William write to FIFA on behalf of the Scotland team wearing poppies? No. Cos he thinks ENGLAND won the war.

That was followed by: I'd love to slide a samurai sword up Prince William's arse to the hilt, then yank it towards me like a door that won't fucking open.;

Of the Tories, Limmy wrote: 'England voted in the Tories KNOWING what would happen, just like Germany voted in the Nazis KNOWING what would happen.

After that attracted the attention of Tories he said: This is fucking excellent, I've got a shower of Tory cunts coming after me, retweeting everything. COME INTAE ME, TORY SCUM, COME INTAE ME!!!!

When criticised over this, he changed his avatar to Stalin, and then to a picture of Thatcher with Die Now written in red over it.'

Tory MP Louise Mensch took up the rebuke. She tweeted: How is it possible for a working comedian to put up an avatar of an old woman w/ red line over her throat & DIE NOW written across her face? Violence against an old woman totally beyond "free speech".

She then enquired about Limmy's employment with the BBC... and Limmy reverted his avatar back to the photograph of himself, and issued the apology.

A man accused of possessing child pornography has been cleared after a judge heard his videos were taken from terrestrial TV.

Police who raided the home of previously convicted sex offender Neil Waters found a DVD containing 40 excerpts from films which had been screened on television.

None of the films was pornographic, and they could be legitimately and legally viewed by the public, Gloucester Crown Court was told.

Judge Jamie Tabor ruled that whatever motive Waters had for gathering the film clips together, they could not be regarded as indecent within the meaning of the law.

On hearing his ruling, prosecutor Virginia Cornwall said the Crown would not continue with the nine charges against Waters of making indecent images of children between.

Giving his ruling, Judge Tabor said he had viewed a selection of the clips and they were undoubtedly of children but they would not be considered by the public to be indecent nowadays - and probably would not have been seen as indecent even 30 years ago. If the case went to trial, he said, the jury would not be allowed to consider the motivation for Waters making the recordings and the disc.

The Judge said:

The children shown in the clips were predominately of children in semi-undressed state. He may well have derived some form of gratification, sexual or otherwise, by looking at scantily clad young children - for example in an aboriginal cave talking to their mother. But if one removes the motivation for making these clips one is left with the images themselves and one asks oneself objectively are they indecent? They are not.

Waters was found not guilty.

Comment: In a Different Context

19th November 2011. From Harvey on the Melon Farmers Forum

The charges (9 counts) against Waters look laughable, but only because he could show that the images were taken from broadcast TV. In another context, those same images downloaded from the internet could easily have been put before a jury and a conviction obtained.

This is similar to images from the Hamilton books which are not indecent when on sale in WH Smith, but are indecent when found on your hard drive.

A man is set to appear in the High Court to defend himself against libel allegations over a book review he wrote on Amazon's website last year.

Vaughan Jones cannot afford representation and is having to defend himself alongside barristers acting on behalf of internet giant Amazon and Richard Dawkins who are also named as co-defendants. The Richard Dawkins Foundation had also published an article by Jones on its website.

The case is being brought by Chris McGrath who wrote and self-published a little known book entitled The Attempted Murder of God: Hidden Science You Really Need to Know .

Libel reform campaigners have expressed concern that the hearing is another example of how Britain's defamation laws disproportionately favour claimants, closing down debate particularly among individuals and organisations who cannot afford costly legal battles.

John Kampfner, the Chief Executive of Index on Censorship, one of the founding partners of the Libel Reform Campaign, said:

That a family man from Nuneaton can face a potentially ruinous libel action for a book review on Amazon shows how archaic and expensive our libel law is. We're pushing the government to commit to a bill in the next Queen's speech so that these chilling laws are reformed to protect freedom of expression.

A complaint about Stiffy's Jaffa Cake and Kola Kubez vodka liqueur products has been upheld by the Portman Group's Independent Complaints Panel for inappropriately linking an alcohol product with sexual success.

The complaint was made by a drinks manufacturer which considered that the brand name Stiffy's was an overtly sexual reference which is banned under the Portman Group Code.

In considering the complaint, the Panel noted that stiffy was a common slang term for an erection and considered that the brand name therefore had strong sexual connotations. The company, Stiffy's Shots Ltd maintained that the brand name had been chosen because Stiffy was the nickname of a person involved in the development of the drink; it had not been chosen for its sexual connotations. The Panel acknowledged that while the company may not have deliberately set out to link the product with sexuality, the brand name alluded to sexual success and accordingly found the product in breach of the responsibility Code.

Henry Ashworth, Chief Executive of the Portman Group, which provides the secretariat for the Independent Complaints Panel, said:

It is totally inappropriate for alcohol marketing to allude to sexual success and following this ruling and our enforcement action, Stiffy's products will be removed from sale in their current form. We would urge anyone who comes across examples of irresponsible alcohol marketing to complain immediately to the Portman Group.

Alcohol companies must be extremely vigilant about marketing their products responsibly and we encourage companies and their agencies to contact our fast, free and confidential advisory service which last year alone handled over 500 requests for advice.

The company, in consultation with the Portman Group's Advisory Service, has now changed the brand name to Stivy's.

More than two-thirds of adults support the shutdown of social networks during periods of social unrest such as the riots in England this summer, new research has revealed.

A poll of 973 adults carried out for the online security firm Unisys found 70% of adults supported the shutdown of Twitter, Facebook and BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), while only 27% disagreed.

However analysis by the Guardian of 2.5m tweets relating to the riots, part of its Reading the Riots study in conjunction with the London School of Economics, found little evidence to support claims the network had been used to instigate unrest. However, the BBM network was believed to have played a role in organising disturbances.

Freedom of expression campaigners said they were worried that Britons were sanctioning draconian measures as ever more services shift online. Padraig Reidy, news editor of Index on Censorship said:

It's very worrying that people would believe shutting down social networks would be in any way desirable. The vast majority of social network use during the unrest was people sreading information and helping each other get home safely. These kinds of actions would weaken the UK's position against authoritarian regimes who censor internet access. As we live more of our lives online, people should be conscious of the amount of power they're potentially handing over to government.

The Campaign for Real Education has condemned his publishers as over the top for deciding to package one of his early adventures, Tintin in the Congo , in shrink-wrap and with a warning about its content.

George Remi, the Belgian artist better known as Herge, first published his tale of derring-do in Africa in 1930. When he re-worked it in 1946 he removed several references to the Congo being a Belgian colony.

But the book still contained a number of images that were perceived as racist. One of these showed a black woman bowing to Tintin and saying White man very great...White mister is big juju man .

The book's publisher, Egmont UK, said it recognised that some readers may be offended by the content. A spokesman said:

This is why we took the unusual step of placing a protective band around the book with a warning about the content and also included an introduction inside the book by the original translators explaining the historical context.

Whilst being frequently requested by fans and collectors who had seen it available in other languages, the work contains scenes which some readers may find offensive.

The warning reads:

In his portrayal of the Belgian Congo, the young Herge' reflects the colonial attitudes of the time...

He depicted the African people according to the bourgeois, paternalistic stereotypes of the period -- an interpretation that some of today's readers may find offensive.

The Royal Shakespeare Company's founder Peter Hall has defended the company's right to be subsidised, saying controversy is the lifeblood of the arts.

Hall, who was the RSC's artistic director at the time of Peter Brook's original production in 1963, said:

The RSC's first production of Marat/Sade back in the sixties was indeed controversial, but the reactions then, it seems to me, were more mature than they are now.

The director's comments come in the wake of an article by the Daily Mail's theatre critic Quentin Letts, which appeared under a headline describing Anthony Neilson's revival as nothing but a shocking waste of your money. Letts wrote:

Subsidised theatre is a wonderful idea. At its best it can ignite noble aspiration. It can inform, entertain, elevate. But not when it is like this.

The Telegraph's Charles Spencer has also subsequently written in favour of the production:

If contemporary drama wants to reflect the way we live now, sex and violence are subjects it cannot afford to ignore.

Hundreds of football fans turned out in Glasgow on Saturday to protest against proposals for a new anti-sectarianism bill. More than 700 people cheered as key speakers from Fans Against Criminalisation called for the bill, currently going through the Scottish Parliament, to be scrapped.

Banners with slogans including kill the bill were waved at the mass gathering in the city's George Square. Organisers of the event said they were delighted with the support, which they say reflected the strength of feeling on the issue.

Jeanette Findlay, of Fans Against Criminalisation, said:

We want this dangerous piece of legislation stopped in its tracks. If they want to tackle sectarianism, use the existing powers... It is not a proper piece of legislation and is unnecessary and unworkable.

A playwright has cancelled a play set partly during the Second World War, claiming the quango which commissioned it asked him to remove references to Nazis, Jews and the invasion of Poland for fear of offending the audience.

The Halloween play was originally approved to be performed as part of ghost tours at Pendennis Castle, in Falmouth, Cornwall, over four nights for an adults only audience.  The scenes in question included a young Polish Jew, who arrived in Britain as a refugee, voicing fears about what would happen to his relatives in occupied Europe.

Playwright Rod Tinson hit out at English Heritage for trying to create a Disneyfied version of history by insisting on changes to his play. Tinson said of the English Heritage request:

They said it was inappropriate for an English Heritage audience. What version of history are they trying to illustrate at this place?

I cannot see why it would be deemed offensive, it was intended for adults, many of whom remember the war or know people who were involved in it. I cannot understand it. I refused to change it because it would have changed the whole storyline.

Google have revealed the number of requests for them to remove content, mostly from YouTube and to hide content from searches. The figures cover the period January to June 2011.

UK

Google received 7 UK court orders to remove 43 items from searches. 14 on grounds of defamation and  28 on grounds of privacy or security.

Google received 1 UK court order and 52 letters from the likes of police and government requesting removal of a total of 220 YouTube videos. 61 for privacy and security, 135 for national security, 3 for violence and 1 for hate speech.

US

Google received 24 US court orders and 3 government/police requests to remove 198 items from searches. 188 of these on grounds of defamation

Google received 6 US court order and 26 letters from the likes of police and government requesting removal of a total of 113 YouTube videos. 62 for privacy and security, and 16 for defamation.

Google also received 5 court orders to remove 379 Google Groups on grounds of defamation. Also 18 requests to remove 47 items from Blogger blogs.

The US requests are a 70% increase over the previous 6 month.

Update: Occupying the High Ground

28th October 2011. From readwriteweb.com , thanks to Nick

In a show of good faith, Google touted the fact that it has refused to cooperate with law enforcement agencies in the U.S. who requested the removal of YouTube videos of police brutality and criticisms of law enforcement officials.

Google cited its transparency report from the first half of this year, but to mention it with violent crackdowns at Occupy Oakland this week, is telling. Google said:

We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove YouTube videos of police brutality, which we did not remove. Separately, we received requests from a different local law enforcement agency for removal of videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. We did not comply with those requests, which we have categorized in this Report as defamation requests.

Tim Barnett, the head of the Olympic and Paralympic News Service, which will provide quick flash quotes to the world's media during the Games, said he strongly refuted any suggestion that there may be censorship of athletes' comments.

We will report fairly and accurately what happens in the mixed zone [where athletes give quick remarks after events], Barnett told more than 500 of the world's media at the World Press Briefing in London.

Barnett's assurances come after the Olympic News Service failed to report any athlete opinion or comment about the London riots during the beach volleyball test event. At the time OPNS staff said they were instructed to only report comments made about sport.

An official consultation on public order powers has just been launched.  

The home secretary, Theresa May, is seeking curfew powers for the police to create no-go areas during riots. The powers are expected to include immediate curfews over large areas to tackle the kind of fast-moving disturbances that swept across many of England's major cities in August. May also wants to extend existing powers to impose curfews on individuals and stronger police powers to order protesters and rioters to remove face masks.

On a more positive note, the consultation will look at repealing section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act, which outlaws insulting words or behaviour . There are claims the provision hampers free speech and it has been the subject of a strong Liberal Democrat campaign.

Parliament's joint human rights committee has called for the removal of the word insulting to raise the threshold of the offence, citing a case in which a teenager was arrested for calling Scientology a cult. Evangelical Christians have complained about the use of section 5 to fine street preachers who proclaim that homosexuality is sinful or immoral.

Those supporting the reform say it would still cover threatening, abusive or disorderly behavour.

The consultation closes on 13 January 2012.

Update: So What About Section 4?

22nd October 2011. Based on article from secularism.org.uk

The National Secular Society, faith groups and civil liberties groups as well as the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), have long argued that the word insulting should be removed from section 5 of the Public Order Act on the grounds that it criminalises free speech.

The NSS is also concerned about the use of insulting in Section 4A of the Public Order Act.

In March 2010, Harry Taylor was found guilty of religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress after he left anti-religious cartoons and other material he had cut from newspapers and magazines in the prayer room of John Lennon airport in Liverpool. Taylor was charged under Part 4A of the Public Order Act after the material was found by the airport chaplain, who said in court that she was insulted, offended, and alarmed by the cartoons and so called the police.

In its legislative Scrutiny of the Protection of Freedoms Bill, the Joint (Parliamentary) Human Rights Committee recommended the amendment of the Public Order Act to remove all references to offences based on insulting words or behaviour. Their report stated: We consider that this would be a human rights enhancing measure and would remove a risk that these provisions may be applied in a manner which is disproportionate and incompatible with the right to freedom of expression, as protected by Article 10 of the [European Convention on Human Rights] and the common law.

Stephen Evans, Campaigns Manager at the National Secular Society, said: In an open and democratic society such as ours, none of us should have the legal right not to be offended.

The word insulting should be deleted because in the interests of free speech there must be a higher threshold for criminality than insult . The law needs an urgent re-examination, so we very much welcome this consultation.

Offsite Comment: The Public Order Act: More than a little insulting

27th October 2011. See  article from  libdemvoice.org by Juilan Huppert MP

What do Peter Tatchell and the Christian Institute have in common? Before you answer, this isn't some deeply unfunny jibe from a Coalition colleague, but one of many unexpected alliances which have formed to oppose Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

This rather insidious Section criminalises all those who use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress . It also applies to those who display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting .

Theatregoers have been walking out of a filthy and depraved Royal Shakespeare Company production in their droves, 'disgusted' by its scenes of nudity, violence and rape.

On one night, 80 left Stratford-upon-Avon's Royal Shakespeare Theatre during the play, Marat/Sade , which features simulated sex acts and torture by Taser.

It is set in a lunatic asylum in post-revolutionary France, where the infamous Marquis de Sade is directing a play about the last days of political thinker Jean Paul Marat using inmates as actors. Written by Swedish playwright Peter Weiss, it has generated controversy since it was first staged in 1964.

Theatregoer Kate Dee, who left at the interval, said:

It was utter filth and depravity. The rape scene came just before the interval and many people did not return for the second half. I knew it was supposed to be edgy but it was the worst kind of filth dressed up as quality theatre. They have got it badly wrong. I don't blame people for walking out. They took it too far this time.

Last night the RSC admitted that, on average, 30 people had left the theatre each night since the production opened on October 14.

Michael Boyd, the Company's Artistic Director said:

Marat/Sade changed the face of British theatre when it premiered in 1964. It's a controversial play because the subjects it explores -- insanity, individuality, sexuality, the abuse of power, freedom versus control -- are just as sensitive today as they were in the 1960s.

There has been plenty of coverage about the death of Gaddafi, particularly as it was somewhat more graphic than usual news coverage.

UK TV censor Ofcom said it had received complaints about numerous broadcasters that aired the images of a dazed or dead-looking Gaddafi being manhandled by his captors.

Media commentators debated the unusually graphic images in Britain's Friday morning papers.

The BBC defended its use of the images as crucial to dispelling the swirl of rumour as conflicting reports emerged about Gaddafi's state. BBC newsroom head Mary Hockaday said:

We do not use such pictures lightly. The images of his dead body were an important part of telling the story to confirm reports of his death.

By contrast, American newspapers tended to shy away from the stronger images.

Update: BBC response re graphic news pictures

23rd October 2011.  See  article from  bbc.co.uk by Mary Hockaday, head of the BBC newsroom.

When the end came, it came very suddenly. For months, the Libyan rebels, supported by Nato, were striving to end Muammar Gaddafi's rule in Libya. For weeks that goal seemed to be coming closer, but for many Libyans a tantalising question remained: where was Gaddafi? For days, attention has been on his hometown of Sirte, where Gaddafi loyalists held out. Then yesterday, Sirte fell and suddenly, unexpectedly, Gaddafi was found. A dramatic news day, which posed many challenges. Our continuing commitment to coverage of Libya means we were able to provide on the ground reporting from Sirte. We are the only UK news organisation to have had a permanent continuous presence in Libya since February and yesterday, our correspondent Gabriel Gatehouse was the only UK broadcaster in Sirte as Gaddafi was killed, able to provide first-hand reporting of what happened, carefully piecing together the day's events. We gained big audiences for our coverage yesterday across platforms. Col Gaddafi

It was a confusing story. This posed another challenge. In the age of mobile phones, footage of the capture of Gaddafi soon started to emerge. We could not always be clear of its origins so it was important to make what checks we could and then be very clear with our audiences what we'd been able to verify and what we hadn't. The other challenge was posed by the nature of the footage itself - very graphic, some of it showing Gaddafi alive but manhandled and bloody and other footage and stills showing his dead and bloodied body. We judged that it was right to use some footage and stills, with warnings about their nature. Part of yesterday's story, especially in the first hours, was the swirl of rumour. The images of his dead body were an important part of telling the story to confirm reports of his death. Images of him alive but manhandled were also disturbing, but told an equally important part of the story about how his captors treated him and how far he himself had fallen. As the different footage emerged through the afternoon, it became an important way for us to piece together what happened - what were the circumstances of his death, did he die from wounds sustained in the fighting or was he captured alive and then shot? As different officials and eyewitnesses gave different accounts, the footage helped us share emerging photographic evidence with the audience.

We do not use such pictures lightly. There are sequences we did not show because we considered them too graphic and we took judgements about what was acceptable for different audiences on different platforms at different times of day, especially for the pre-watershed BBC1 bulletins. I recognise that not every member of the audience will agree with our decisions, but we thought carefully about how to balance honest coverage of the story with audience sensitivity. The News Channel faces a different challenge. We know that many people join the coverage through the day or only watch for a short while. For these audiences we need to keep retelling the story. But we also know that some people watch the live rolling coverage for several hours, and with the Gaddafi story this meant some repetition of the graphic images. It is a difficult balance to strike. For the website, we chose to use an image of Gaddafi's body in the rotating picture gallery on the front page. We recognise that it is hard to provide a warning on the front page and so while we felt it was an important part of telling the core story in the early stages, as time passed we found other ways to convey what had happened on the front page, with the most graphic images at least a click away and with a clear warning.

There were undoubtedly shocking and disturbing images from yesterday. But as a news organisation our role is to report what happened, and that can include shocking and disturbing things. We thought carefully about the use of pictures - which incidentally we used more sparingly than many other UK media - and I believe that overall they were editorially justified to convey the nature of yesterday's dramatic and gruesome events

Reforms to England's libel laws will not do enough to protect free speech. A powerful parliamentary committee believes further steps are needed to prevent big corporations using their financial muscle to gag opponents by threatening legal action.

It also wants extra measures to protect scientists and academics who are publishing legitimate research, and to prevent trivial claims ever reaching court.

The committee has been scrutinising the Coalition's proposals to end the international embarrassment that sees rich and powerful foreigners flocking to our courts to silence critics.

The report from the joint committee on the draft Defamation Bill says many of the Government's proposals, particularly a move to end trial by jury except in the most serious cases, are worthwhile . But it says the plans are modest and do not address the key problem in defamation law, the unacceptably high costs associated with defending cases.

Recommendation that websites be held responsible for anonymous comments

See  article from  bbc.co.uk

Websites should have protection from defamation cases if they act quickly to remove anonymous postings which prompt a complaint, a report says. A joint parliamentary committee tasked with examining libel reform says it wants a cultural shift so that posts under pseudonyms are not considered true, reliable or trustworthy , But it says websites which identify authors and publish complaints alongside comments should get legal protection.

The committee proposes a new notice and takedown procedure for defamatory online comments - aimed at providing a quick remedy for those who are defamed and to give websites which use the procedure more legal protection.

It recommends that where complaints are made about comments from identified authors - the website should promptly publish a notice of the complaint alongside it. The complainant can then apply to a court for a takedown order - which if granted, should result in the comment being removed, if the website is to avoid the risk of a defamation claim.

But where potentially defamatory comments are anonymous, the website should immediately remove them on receipt of a complaint, unless the author agrees to identify themselves, the report says. The author of the comment can then be sued for defamation but if a website refuses to take down an anonymous remark it should be treated as its publisher and face the risk of libel proceedings .

The report also says a website could apply to a court for a leave-up order, if it (is rich enough and) considers the anonymous comment to be on a matter of significant public interest.

But Mumsnet, a parenting website, says many of its members rely on the ability to ask questions or post comments anonymously. Many of the women posting messages do so under a user name , rather than their real name - and the site is worried the proposal will mean more people demanding messages be taken down.

Its co-founder, Justine Roberts, said while it was right to stop people from assassinating the character of others from behind the cloak of anonymity the report did not recognise how useful anonymous postings were in allowing people to speak honestly about difficult real-life situations . The recommendations could have a chilling effect on sites like Mumsnet where many thousands of people use anonymity to confidentially seek and give advice about sensitive real-life situations.

Under the current law, websites are liable for defamatory statements made by their users. If they fail to take down a post when they receive a complaint, they risk being treated as the primary publisher of the statement.

So how is a website to know if users correctly identify themselves anyway?

Ahmed Faraz  distributed extremist books and DVDs with the aim of priming people for terrorism , a court has heard.

He is charged with 10 counts of disseminating terrorist publications, nine counts of having terrorist publications in his possession, with a view to distributing them, and a further 11 counts relating to the possession of information that is likely to be useful to someone committing or preparing an act of terrorism.

He was not connected to any specific terrorist plot, a jury at Kingston Crown Court, south west London, was told.

Max Hill QC, prosecuting, said:

This case is about the distribution of books and DVDs and other material which we say represent steps along the road to radicalisation of Muslims to engage in violent terrorist attacks around the world, including the UK. This case is also about the ways and means by which to solidify that radicalisation and provide practical assistance for those who have been radicalised.

Several of the publications distributed by this defendant did end up in the hands of individuals, many of them now notorious - or infamous - terrorists who have stood trial in English courtrooms such as this in the last five years and are now serving long prison sentences, having been found guilty of plotting to terrorise the British public.

Faraz denies all charges. The trial is scheduled to finish in January 2012.

The valuable Banksy street stencilled wall mural on the side of a London Post Office, which had become a tourist attraction in itself, has been censored. Presumably this was on the orders of some apparatchik at the Westminster Council or the Post Office, in spite of the fact that such Banksy stencil wall murals are worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Incredibly, Westminster Council have installed a WiFi connected CCTV camera overlooking the site, should anyone have thoughts of art restoration.

Pressure is mounting on the Scottish Government over its plans for anti-sectarian speech laws after an unprecedented attack on Alex Salmond by the Catholic Church.

It comes as the First Minister prepares to meet with Bishop Philip Tartaglia at the First Minister's official residence, Bute House, in Edinburgh.

As The Herald revealed yesterday, the bishop, who many expect to be Scotland's next cardinal, warned of a serious chill between the Catholic community and SNP Government. He also accused Salmond of reneging on a promise to make public statistics on convictions for sectarian offences.

On other fronts, Labour's justice spokesman, James Kelly, has wrotten to Tricia Marwick, Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, casting doubt on whether the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Kelly, speaking ahead of publication tomorrow of findings from the second stage of the Bill, claimed the demand was made in light of concerns from the Scottish Human Rights Commission and said the legislation was too broad and risked spawning rafts of costly court cases and compensation claims. He said:

There are serious questions as to whether the Bill complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. My fear is the legislation is drafted too broadly, which may lead to a situation where fans do not even realise their behaviour is breaking the law.

We must have complete confidence any legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament is absolutely watertight to avoid our laws potentially being subject to costly court cases and compensations claims down the line.

A Tory spokesman said:

All right-minded people want to eradicate the evils of sectarianism, but the best way of doing this is with clear, robust and vigorous legislation. We must guard against 'something must be done syndrome' producing bad law.

Update: Freedom of Speech Clause

8th October 2011. See  article from  thescotsman.scotsman.com

Alex Salmond has offered a freedom of speech concession to opponents of his government's anti-sectarian legislation in a bid to appease critics of the SNP's contentious new laws. The announcement of the freedom of expression clause came after the First Minister held a meeting with the Bishop of Paisley in response to a letter the churchman had written setting out concerns about the government's anti-sectarianism legislation and its plans to bring in same-sex marriage.

Afterwards, Bishop Philip Tartaglia acknowledged the concession by the government.

Update: Review to check how crap the law will be

9th October 2011. SSee  article from  scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com

Alex Salmond is set to agree to a formal review of his anti-sectarianism crackdown to appease critics who claim the measures he is proposing will prove to be either worthless or counter-productive. The First Minister is expected to back a call from MSPs to put the new laws under review after they get through a parliamentary vote, so sceptics can monitor whether or not they make any difference.

The move comes after Salmond's bid to win unanimous backing was damaged last week when Labour MSPs announced they were opposing the new laws on the grounds that they might make the fight against sectarianism harder.

Nominet has suspended 500 .uk domains as part of an international operation to close down websites selling counterfeit pharmaceutical products.

Almost 13,500 websites worldwide were suspended as part of Operation Pangea IV, an Interpol coordinated effort which resulted in the seizure of more than 2.4 million pills.

Nominet acted to suspend the .uk domains following a request from The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Police Central e-Crime Unit.

Eleanor Bradley, Nominet's Director of Operations, said that the sites were in clear breach of Nominet's terms and conditions, due to their owners having provided fraudulent WHOIS details.

Campaigners against a proposed nasty new law to stamp out football sectarianism vowed to step up their protest as they distributed thousands of leaflets at the Rangers versus Hibs game.

Take a Liberty (Scotland) also plans to target Celtic Park and other football grounds, and demonstrate outside the Scottish Parliament when the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications bill is debated.

The bill would see those convicted face up to five years in jail for bigoted behaviour, such as singing or chanting that could incite trouble, at matches or online.

Their campaign intensified amid growing signs that opposition politicians at Holyrood believe the SNP's proposals are becoming increasingly confused and could criminalise ordinary fans.

Take a Liberty has the backing of former Celtic director and ex-Lord Provost of Glasgow, Michael Kelly, who said the bill is a runaway train . Kelly said:

It is ironic that our much maligned football fans are the first to stand up to defend freedom of speech and oppose this ridiculous, undemocratic and unenforceable piece of redundant legislation.

The ordinary fan has clearly a much firmer grasp of what human rights mean in Scotland than a First Minister jumping on a bandwagon which has quickly become a runaway train.

Take a Liberty spokesman Stuart Waiton said fans from a variety of clubs, including Airdrie and Celtic, helped hand out 5,000 leaflets at Ibrox, demanding free speech in football and an end to the police harassment of fans who are deemed to be singing 'offensive' songs . He said the move was aimed at boosting a petition against the bill, which has attracted nearly 3,000 signatures. The group has also produced T-shirts with the slogan, after Voltaire: I may hate what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.