UK Parliament Watch

Labour MP Tom Watson spoke out at the Labour Conference to criticise Ed Miliband, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and the rest of Parliament for turning a blind eye to the explosive growth in the power of the surveillance state

Speaking in the light of a summer of revelations from whistleblower Edward Snowden about the Internet surveillance programmes of British and American intelligence, he said:

We're living in the most closed system of liberal democracy in the Western world. We have the most unaccountable intelligence services.

Parliamentary scrutiny hasn't just failed. It doesn't exist.

I can't think what any party leader has said about this. That's an absolute disgrace. This is a callous denial of our freedom.

I have no faith in the Intelligence and Security Committee [which is charged with overseeing the UK intelligence agencies]. I hope Parliamentarians say we're not going to take it this anymore.

We have to say we're not going to put up with this and build a cross-party coalition to make the intelligence services accountable for once and for all and provide oversight of a surveillance state running amok.

He was speaking at a fringe event hosted by campaign groups Open Rights Group and Big Brother Watch.

Also speaking was Paul Johnson, the Deputy Editor of The Guardian who has orchestrated their coverage of the Edward Snowden revelations. He talked about:

The most surreal 36 hours I've ever had as a journalist where, on the orders of GCHQ, we bought masks and anglegrinders...to destroy the material [that they had from Edward Snowden].

We told them two weeks earlier it was already in New York. The whole thing was surreal. It was an entirely bizarre moment. It illustrates at heart that the British Government doesn't believe this story should have been written.

Javier Ruiz, Campaigns Director of Open Rights Group called for the start of a movement against mass surveillance:

This isn't just the responsibility of political parties. We really need to look at a political solution that involves citizens, government and private companies.

Nick Pickles - Director of Big Brother Watch, told the audience:

How we govern data isn't fit for the Internet age. Parliament need to drag the intelligence agencies into the open. Secrecy cannot be justified to simply prevent embarrassment. We've been telling the world to do one thing while doing a completely different thing ourselves.

A House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee report has condemned Google's failure to adequately respond to the issue of online piracy and its refusal to block infringing websites on the grounds they might also carry legal material. Citing the recent successful prosecution of a streaming site admin, the committee also calls for punishment in such cases to be extended to 10 years imprisonment.

During the last couple of years media industry companies have heavily criticized Google for linking to copyright-infringing material in its search results.

Google has responded by removing many millions of links but apparently that's just not enough. In the past couple of weeks the world's largest search engine has become a punching bag for the music and movie industries and today they find themselves battered again, this time by a British House of Commons report.

The reports finds many targets for criticism but begins with a swipe at the UK's leading Internet rights groups. Open Rights Group

The relationship between the strength of Britain's creative industries and robust copyright laws is acknowledged by the Open Rights Group which aims radically to liberalise the use and sharing of copyrighted content.

While we share the Open Rights Group's attachment to freedom of expression via the internet, we firmly repudiate their laissez-faire attitudes towards copyright infringement.

The report goes on to mention the creation of a new City of London Police unit dedicated to cracking down on intellectual property crime and reveals that a first-of-its-kind conference is being planned to bring players from across the world to London to discuss enforcement issues.

But inevitably the big guns were turned on the messenger. Google in the firing line again

The Committee begins by quoting Google itself, who at the time were removing around 9 million URLs from its indexes every month at the request of copyright holders. This was countered with information provided by the BPI who said that despite Google's alleged algorithm changes, the instances of infringing sites turning up in the top 10 results had fallen only marginally, from 63% in August 2012 to 61% a year later. Clearly the Committee are unimpressed. The report states:

We strongly condemn the failure of Google, notable among technology companies, to provide an adequate response to creative industry requests to prevent its search engine directing consumers to copyright-infringing websites.

We are unimpressed by their evident reluctance to block infringing websites on the flimsy grounds that some operate under the cover of hosting some legal content. The continuing promotion by search engines of illegal content on the internet is unacceptable. So far, their attempts to remedy this have been derisorily ineffective.

We do not believe it to be beyond the wit of the engineers employed by Google and others to demote and, ideally, remove copyright infringing material from search engine results. Google co-operates with law enforcement agencies to block child pornographic content from search results and it has provided no coherent, responsible answer as to why it cannot do the same for sites which blatantly, and illegally, offer pirated content.

We recommend that the maximum penalty for serious online copyright theft be extended to ten years' imprisonment. Criminal offences in the online world should attract the same penalties as those provided for the physical world by the Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002.

Finally the report criticizes the delay in implementing the controversial Digital Economy Act, stalled now for the best part of three years. In particular, the issuing of warning notices to infringers should come sooner rather than later.

We recommend that a copyright infringement notification system envisaged by the Digital Economy Act be implemented with far greater speed than the Government currently plans. By targeting information letters to the worst infringers, early implementation will, we believe, serve an important educative purpose which could percolate more widely.

Update: Open Rights Group respond

27th September 2013. See  article from  openrightsgroup.org

Overall the Committee's report is a fairly disappointing and unimaginative piece of work. They offer a view of copyright that is too simplistic, one-sided and which effectively tries to reduce the debate to whether you like the creative industries or not. They thus ignore the wider impact of new technology on citizens as creators and participants in culture, and on how markets for cultural goods can now function most effectively.

...See Open Rights Group comments about the report

A member of the house of Lords has written to Ofcom complaining that the military magazine Der Landser publishes content that glorifies German soldiers in the 2nd World War.

Monroe Palmer feels that this should disqualify the magazine's publisher, Bauer Media , from holding a broadcasting licence for Absolute Radio, which it recently acquired.

His voice is adding to several others trying to indirectly censor Bauer's magazines. Banker Bruce Fireman and another peer, Greville Janner, are also supporting the complaints.

Deidre Berger, director of the Ramer institute for German-Jewish relations explained the opposition to Bauer in an interview. She claimed the magazine encouraged young people:

To have an affinity for world war two. They're glorifying the war, and leaving out completely any mention of Germany 's responsibility for the holocaust.

Der Landser is a magazine that writes about Germany's role in the war as if the people about whom it writes were not war criminals, and some of them were.

Bauer told the BBC that the magazine complied with German law. It neither trivialised nor glorified war crimes.

Update: Ofcom Investigating

7th September 2013. See  article from  independent.co.uk

Ofcom has announced it is in contact with German authorities as it investigates whether Kiss FM owner Bauer is a fit and proper broadcaster, after complaints that it publishes a magazine that is said to glorify German Second World War soldiers.

Ofcom has contacted Germany's Federal Review Board for Media Harmful To Minors, the censor responsible for monitoring issues such as coverage of war atrocities.

Bauer said none of its publications trivialise or glorify National Socialism or war crimes

Update: War Censors

14th September 2013. See  article from  express.co.uk

Bowing to international pressure, Bauer Media has announced it would stop publication of Second World War title Der Landser (The Squaddie).

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has claimed that the magazine was making the Third Reich acceptable to a new generation of Germans.

Jewish leaders were appalled that the magazine included tributes to the brutal Waffen-SS. The director of Global Jewish Advocacy, Deidre Berger, claimed:

They encourage young people to have an affinity with World War Two. They are glorifying it and leaving out any mention of Germany's role in the Holocaust.

Bauer insisted it had been legal saying a German lawyer concludes that Der Landser complies fully with the stringent legislation in Germany and neither glorifies nor trivialises National Socialism. Its statement announced it has decided to cease publishing the series .

Lib Dem MP Stephen Gilbert had set up a House of Commons debate to whinge about venues arranging occasional lap dancing events in Newquay.

He introduced his debate by admitting to being a begrudging 'liberal':

I want to say first what the debate is not. This is not a debate that is led by prudish intolerance in relation to sexual entertainment. I have never been to a lap-dancing club, and my view is that real men do not buy women for entertainment, but, as a Liberal, I accept that if adults want to make such choices, that is up to them. The debate is about ensuring consistency in the application of the regulation of sexual entertainment on our high streets. It is about ensuring that performers in and patrons of sexual entertainment venues---lap-dancing clubs---are properly protected and that local communities are involved in the decision-making process about where and when such venues should operate.

His basic contention was that occasional events allowed under licensing law were not governed by repressive council rules designed to ensure that table dancing is totally devoid of sexual entertainment such as dancers having to stay 3 feet aprt from customers.

Jeremy Browne, the Not So Liberal Democrat Home Office minister, seemed to agree about the need for prudery and warned that venues are abusing an exemption intended to allow one-off events such as hiring a strip-a-gram for a birthday party.

He claimed one venue used the exemption after being refused a sexual entertainment licence following protests by a few residents. He said:

The venue in question has now begun operating sexual entertainment events within the exemptions of the Act.

This is not the occasional use of a strip-a-gram but a full 24 hour window once a month to operate as a full sexual entertainment venue.

This exemption has led, in Newquay, to lap-dancing nights being offered on this so-called occasional basis in direct competition to a licensed venue, but without any of the obligations that the licensed venue needs to meet.

Gilbert called for the Government to amend the law and suggested that venues hosting lap dancing events be subject to the same stringent requirements as licensed clubs. He said:

This would require minimal effort in terms of legislation, as the existing law does allow the relevant national authority to order, amend or repeal the exemption clause without the need for primary legislation.

Speaking on behalf of the Government, Jeremy Browne said he would look the matter to see whether the legislation is being used as it is supposed to. He said:

There may be some scope for us to make changes so that that flexibility is exercised in a way that is in line with the spirit of what Parliament intended when this legislation was announced in 2009.

It is possible for ingenious owners of bars to use the exemptions in a way which gives them more scope to provide regular entertainment of a sexual entertainment than was envisaged by ministers and Parliament when this legislation was introduced in 2009.

[If] an individual owned four or five venues in a single town, it would be possible for an individual to put on a sexual entertainment evening every Saturday night at one of those venues. In a way that goes beyond the spirit of the exemptions.

A member of the house of Lords has written to Ofcom complaining that the military magazine Der Landser publishes content that glorifies German soldiers in the 2nd World War.

Monroe Palmer feels that this should disqualify the magazine's publisher, Bauer Media , from holding a broadcasting licence for Absolute Radio, which it recently acquired.

His voice is adding to several others trying to indirectly censor Bauer's magazines. Banker Bruce Fireman and another peer, Greville Janner, are also supporting the complaints.

Deidre Berger, director of the Ramer institute for German-Jewish relations explained the opposition to Bauer in an interview. She claimed the magazine encouraged young people:

To have an affinity for world war two. They're glorifying the war, and leaving out completely any mention of Germany 's responsibility for the holocaust.

Der Landser is a magazine that writes about Germany's role in the war as if the people about whom it writes were not war criminals, and some of them were.

Bauer told the BBC that the magazine complied with German law. It neither trivialised nor glorified war crimes.

Update: Ofcom Investigating

7th September 2013. See  article from  independent.co.uk

Ofcom has announced it is in contact with German authorities as it investigates whether Kiss FM owner Bauer is a fit and proper broadcaster, after complaints that it publishes a magazine that is said to glorify German Second World War soldiers.

Ofcom has contacted Germany's Federal Review Board for Media Harmful To Minors, the censor responsible for monitoring issues such as coverage of war atrocities.

Bauer said none of its publications trivialise or glorify National Socialism or war crimes

A negative public reaction to the government's disgraceful lobbying bill and its effect on censoring campaign groups has led to a promise to make significant changes.

Liberal Democrat sources said the government will retreat on some parts of the lobbying bill as early as next week, after campaign groups raised serious concerns that it would have a chilling effect on their campaigns.

The news comes days after MPs attacked the bill as a dog's breakfast and a mess when it was debated for the first time in the House of Commons.

Labour attacked its sinister restrictions on campaigning by campaign groups a year before an election, while backbench Tories expressed reservations about its impact on free speech.

It is understood the government will offer to remove several controversial clauses, including ones that said campaigning could count as political if it procures success for a candidate, even if it does not endorse a specific party. Charities from Oxfam to the Royal British Legion feared this could make them subject to spending limits on political campaigning in the year before an election.

Sources close to Nick Clegg said the amendments would mean no extra charities or third parties would be caught by the restrictions, though some that faced limits in 2010 would still be affected by new limits.

Even with the promised concessions, the lobbying bill will still mean third parties are subject to tougher restrictions on political campaigning.

The Electoral Commission has warned the new spending limits could mean it would have to ask groups in breach of the law to take down blogs or stop political rallies. The watchdog said the bill would create a high degree of uncertainty.

The Electoral Commission , Britain's elections watchdog, has concluded that government plans to censor political campaigning before a general election are flawed and in part unworkable.

In a private briefing sent to interested parties, the commission says that it has significant concerns about the coalition's lobbying bill, that some parts of it may be unenforceable and that it is not at all clear how the new restrictions affecting charities will work.

When the transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration bill 2013-14 was published in July, the day before MPs broke up for their summer recess, it emerged that, as well as long-expected plans for a statutory register of lobbyists, the bill includes proposals that would drastically censor campaign groups from speaking on political issues in the 12 months before a general election.

In its letter, the commission says the proposed rules about spending at constituency level may be unenforceable , partly because it will often be hard for campaigners to identify with a reasonable level of confidence when an activity has 'no significant effects' in a given constituency .

More broadly, it says the proposed rules about what constitutes election-related activity are not sufficiently clear. The briefing says:

In our view, it is not at all clear how that test will apply in practice to the activities of the many third parties that have other purposes beyond political campaigning. For instance, it seems arguable that the new test could apply to many of the activities of charities, voluntary organisations, blogs, thinktanks and other organisations that engage in debate on public policy.

John Sauven, executive director at Greenpeace , one of more than 100 charity organisations that have expressed concerns about the bill, said the legislation was the most pernicious assault on campaign groups in living memory .

A spokesman for the Electoral Commission said it had significant concerns about the bill and would be explaining them in detail to a select committee in September. The bill's second reading is on 3 September, with its three-day committee stage a week later.

The parliamentary Culture, Media and Sport Committee has announced another inquiry into Online Safety:

Despite technological innovation and an increase in public understanding of dangers, the online world continues to pose hazards, from images of child abuse to trolling. These dangers are the correlation of the immense benefits provided by unimpeded communication and free speech, so any attempts to mitigate harms have to be proportionate and, where possible, avoid disadvantageous consequences.

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has decided to investigate a number of aspects of online safety that are currently raising concerns, in particular:

• How best to protect minors from accessing adult content;

• Filtering out extremist material, including images of child abuse and material intended to promote terrorism or other acts of violence;

• Preventing abusive or threatening comments on social media.

The Committee invites written evidence from those who wish to contribute to the inquiry.