The UK’s controversial Digital Economy Bill has tonight been voted into law by the House of Commons.
Among many other things, the Bill supports compulsory internet disconnection for persistent internet pirates and making owners of publicly accessible wi-fi hotspots liable for piracy committed on their connections.
Powers for copyright holders to force ISPs to block access to websites they say are hosting illegally copied files were toned down in the Bill’s third reading but if a court suspects piracy on site, it can still be blocked.
These are draconian measures that, with an internet connection becoming almost fundamental to life in the UK, will have a huge social impact. That the Bill will now become law has caused something of a stir amongst switched-on, net savvy people in the UK. While many of these people felt democracy failed tonight, social media was a big winner…
Democracy FAIL
Here’s basically what happened:
- A handful of MPs showed up to debate the Bill during its third reading. Most of them opposed parts of the Bill and thought that it needed more time to be debated after the General Election that takes place next month. Great points were made, including the fact that Wikileaks would be banned for hosting copyright infringing material, despite the fact that it operates for a wider social good, not for profit.
- Then the Bill was voted on. Lots more MPs who hadn’t been in the debate turned up and voted the way they’d been told to by their party whip.
- The Bill passed 189 for to 47 against. Oh, and 419 MPs didn’t even show up.
For an important bill with a huge impact on Britain’s future, that’s a shocking disappointment.
Social Media WIN
While many people will be disappointed with the result tonight, it’s shown how social media has the potential to improve transparency in government.
Firstly, thousands of people were following tonight’s events via the BBC’s live web video feed and discussing it on Twitter using the #debill hashtag. Several tweets made the point that politics would be very different if the House of Commons had a Twitter backchannel so MPs could see what the public really thought about what was happening.
This wouldn’t necessarily work all the time; not all bills attract quite as much interest from smart, tech savvy people. However, it was quite a spectacle to watch MPs speak on the video feed and then see a swarm of tweets instantly pass judgement on what was said. If those tweets were fed back somehow to the MPs, it truly would be democracy in action.
In the case of one MP, the tweets probably were getting through. Labour MP Tom Watson, a heavy Twitter user, was seen checking his iPhone during the debate. Could he have been following the #debill hashtag? On past form, we’d say it’s likely the answer is probably yes.
Watson showed himself to be one of the only voices in parliament to truly understand the new digital world, and the support for him in amongst those using the #debill hashtag was immense.
Once the debate was over and the voting was on, Watson started tweeting and he showed that he voted on his principles, not as he had been told to by the party whip…
Breaking whip is a big deal for MPs. To admit it on Twitter so emotively is a significant move by Watson. If only more MPs were so candid.
Meanwhile, over 3000 people have so far chosen to “not recognise” the Digital Economy Bill using a site called What Digital Economy Bill? It’s a valid form of protest, although we’re pretty sure the courts won’t take that as a defence when they cut off your internet connection!
You make it sound like an Evangelical cult, Martin.
Bill succeeds? Social media win.
Bill fails? Social media win.
Winning is about getting your program through, or causing the least damage to your side. You might want to compare the tactics of the photographers, who didn't use social media and used old fashioned persuasion, and WON – to the Open Rights Group, which has let us all down.
Good report on this at The Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/mandybi…
You make it sound like an Evangelical cult, Martin.
Bill succeeds? Social media win.
Bill fails? Social media win.
Winning is about getting your program through, or causing the least damage to your side. You might want to compare the tactics of the photographers, who didn't use social media and used old fashioned persuasion, and WON – to the Open Rights Group, which has let us all down.
Good report on this at The Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/mandybi…
You make it sound like an Evangelical cult, Martin.
Bill succeeds? Social media win.
Bill fails? Social media win.
Winning is about getting your program through, or causing the least damage to your side. You might want to compare the tactics of the photographers, who didn't use social media and used old fashioned persuasion, and WON – to the Open Rights Group, which has let us all down.
Good report on this at The Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/mandybi…
You make it sound like an Evangelical cult, Martin.
Bill succeeds? Social media win.
Bill fails? Social media win.
Winning is about getting your program through, or causing the least damage to your side. You might want to compare the tactics of the photographers, who didn't use social media and used old fashioned persuasion, and WON – to the Open Rights Group, which has let us all down.
Good report on this at The Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/mandybi…
You make it sound like an Evangelical cult, Martin.
Bill succeeds? Social media win.
Bill fails? Social media win.
Winning is about getting your program through, or causing the least damage to your side. You might want to compare the tactics of the photographers, who didn't use social media and used old fashioned persuasion, and WON – to the Open Rights Group, which has let us all down.
Good report on this at The Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/mandybi…
You make it sound like an Evangelical cult, Martin.
Bill succeeds? Social media win.
Bill fails? Social media win.
Winning is about getting your program through, or causing the least damage to your side. You might want to compare the tactics of the photographers, who didn't use social media and used old fashioned persuasion, and WON – to the Open Rights Group, which has let us all down.
Good report on this at The Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/mandybi…
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
You might have misunderstood me, Steve. I said social media won as it showed itself to be a great tool for protest and debate in the face of MPs voting on something they didn't (in many cases) understand. Where does the evangelical cult come into it?
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
This Digital Economy Bill will have far reaching consequences for people in the media and book publishing sectors – we need to see more on the issue in the mainstream press.
Nice article. I have been following the shambles in the House of Commons for the past couple of nights from the time I get in from the office till the time they break, as well as when it was discussed in the House of Lords.
I really was appalled at the complete lack of turn out by the vast majority of MP's, whom had obviously been asked by many of their constituents to oppose the bill on their behalf or at least speak for them. When I wrote to my MP Norman Baker (Lewes), he stated in his letter that they were opposed to the bill, yet I believe that there was only one Lib Dem in the house last night, and a couple (I think) tonight.
This bill is going to be massively abused by the government, and unfortunately the vast amount of our country won't have a clue as to either what this bill is or the ramifications of it's passing.
I have to agree as well and commend @tom_watson on his valiant fight. He made a lot of friends tonight.
Nice article. I have been following the shambles in the House of Commons for the past couple of nights from the time I get in from the office till the time they break, as well as when it was discussed in the House of Lords.
I really was appalled at the complete lack of turn out by the vast majority of MP's, whom had obviously been asked by many of their constituents to oppose the bill on their behalf or at least speak for them. When I wrote to my MP Norman Baker (Lewes), he stated in his letter that they were opposed to the bill, yet I believe that there was only one Lib Dem in the house last night, and a couple (I think) tonight.
This bill is going to be massively abused by the government, and unfortunately the vast amount of our country won't have a clue as to either what this bill is or the ramifications of it's passing.
I have to agree as well and commend @tom_watson on his valiant fight. He made a lot of friends tonight.
Nice article. I have been following the shambles in the House of Commons for the past couple of nights from the time I get in from the office till the time they break, as well as when it was discussed in the House of Lords.
I really was appalled at the complete lack of turn out by the vast majority of MP's, whom had obviously been asked by many of their constituents to oppose the bill on their behalf or at least speak for them. When I wrote to my MP Norman Baker (Lewes), he stated in his letter that they were opposed to the bill, yet I believe that there was only one Lib Dem in the house last night, and a couple (I think) tonight.
This bill is going to be massively abused by the government, and unfortunately the vast amount of our country won't have a clue as to either what this bill is or the ramifications of it's passing.
I have to agree as well and commend @tom_watson on his valiant fight. He made a lot of friends tonight.
Nice article. I have been following the shambles in the House of Commons for the past couple of nights from the time I get in from the office till the time they break, as well as when it was discussed in the House of Lords.
I really was appalled at the complete lack of turn out by the vast majority of MP's, whom had obviously been asked by many of their constituents to oppose the bill on their behalf or at least speak for them. When I wrote to my MP Norman Baker (Lewes), he stated in his letter that they were opposed to the bill, yet I believe that there was only one Lib Dem in the house last night, and a couple (I think) tonight.
This bill is going to be massively abused by the government, and unfortunately the vast amount of our country won't have a clue as to either what this bill is or the ramifications of it's passing.
I have to agree as well and commend @tom_watson on his valiant fight. He made a lot of friends tonight.
Nice article. I have been following the shambles in the House of Commons for the past couple of nights from the time I get in from the office till the time they break, as well as when it was discussed in the House of Lords.
I really was appalled at the complete lack of turn out by the vast majority of MP's, whom had obviously been asked by many of their constituents to oppose the bill on their behalf or at least speak for them. When I wrote to my MP Norman Baker (Lewes), he stated in his letter that they were opposed to the bill, yet I believe that there was only one Lib Dem in the house last night, and a couple (I think) tonight.
This bill is going to be massively abused by the government, and unfortunately the vast amount of our country won't have a clue as to either what this bill is or the ramifications of it's passing.
I have to agree as well and commend @tom_watson on his valiant fight. He made a lot of friends tonight.
Nice article. I have been following the shambles in the House of Commons for the past couple of nights from the time I get in from the office till the time they break, as well as when it was discussed in the House of Lords.
I really was appalled at the complete lack of turn out by the vast majority of MP's, whom had obviously been asked by many of their constituents to oppose the bill on their behalf or at least speak for them. When I wrote to my MP Norman Baker (Lewes), he stated in his letter that they were opposed to the bill, yet I believe that there was only one Lib Dem in the house last night, and a couple (I think) tonight.
This bill is going to be massively abused by the government, and unfortunately the vast amount of our country won't have a clue as to either what this bill is or the ramifications of it's passing.
I have to agree as well and commend @tom_watson on his valiant fight. He made a lot of friends tonight.
I wouldn't say the bits about blocking websites, sorry web “locations”, was toned down at all. Made far too board would be a better description.
There's going to be a lot of websites dropping off the internet, Wikileaks for a start.
This is pretty surprised at the speed of a favourable reply from my MP, both re. this subject and previously re. my objections to an ID card.However, I still say that Mandelson has got an awful lot to answer for.
m3 real
This is pretty surprised at the speed of a favourable reply from my MP, both re. this subject and previously re. my objections to an ID card.However, I still say that Mandelson has got an awful lot to answer for.
m3 real
This is pretty surprised at the speed of a favourable reply from my MP, both re. this subject and previously re. my objections to an ID card.However, I still say that Mandelson has got an awful lot to answer for.
m3 real
This is pretty surprised at the speed of a favourable reply from my MP, both re. this subject and previously re. my objections to an ID card.However, I still say that Mandelson has got an awful lot to answer for.
m3 real
This is pretty surprised at the speed of a favourable reply from my MP, both re. this subject and previously re. my objections to an ID card.However, I still say that Mandelson has got an awful lot to answer for.
m3 real
This is pretty surprised at the speed of a favourable reply from my MP, both re. this subject and previously re. my objections to an ID card.However, I still say that Mandelson has got an awful lot to answer for.
m3 real
This is pretty surprised at the speed of a favourable reply from my MP, both re. this subject and previously re. my objections to an ID card.However, I still say that Mandelson has got an awful lot to answer for.
m3 real
This is pretty surprised at the speed of a favourable reply from my MP, both re. this subject and previously re. my objections to an ID card.However, I still say that Mandelson has got an awful lot to answer for.
m3 real
This is pretty surprised at the speed of a favourable reply from my MP, both re. this subject and previously re. my objections to an ID card.However, I still say that Mandelson has got an awful lot to answer for.
m3 real
This is pretty surprised at the speed of a favourable reply from my MP, both re. this subject and previously re. my objections to an ID card.However, I still say that Mandelson has got an awful lot to answer for.
m3 real
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
In The Netherlands every politician is on Twitter.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
I got very engaged with the online feed last night – which in itself was instructive. It made me think how much better it could have been (e.g. with more of a commentary on what was going on, and with easier access to the actual clauses/documents etc.) In truth, this debate was the endgame of a long process. I'm pretty agnostic on the bill as a whole, as its long overdue that there was a serious bill addressing the digital economy. It is naive in the extreme to think this opportunity will come up as a priority in any new parliament. The more vital issue, which Tom Watson, Austin Mitchell etc. articulated far clearer than the bill sponsor Stephen Timms, was that it is badly drafted, badly worded legislation. It should not have become such an emotive subject (the twittersphere is sometimes a bit ADD about all this, focussing on one particular point) when it is a highly technical subject. I'm reasonably relaxed in that bad law, and make no mistake, this is a bad law, tends to fail to do either what it was meant to do, or – when reaching the courts – what we fear it might do. Like other bad laws its likely to be unenforceable or require the courts. Believe me when I say the record industry does not want its lobbied clauses to be tested in court, and a definitive judgement handed down. There's a real possibility that if these issues go to court, then precedent will define what is illegal, and what is not – e.g. formalising the legality of personal use of digital content. That this bill should have addressed that and hasn't is why it is bad law. The most disappointing thing last night wasn't the particular badly written clauses – after all the debate has been very valuable and Timms and Vaizey came out of it very badly – but that the landline levy for paying for Next Gen broadband has been removed. I would consider it very unlikely that this, which was Lord Carter's one truly innovative idea, will ever now happen. The limited focus of the lobby groups on one or two clauses of the bill has obscured the wider issues. As we know, there are many different shades of point of view around “open rights”, and it seems that rather than find a compromise view that would have been acceptable to all parties, we are left with the worst of both worlds. A fascinating insight into parliamentary process, not all edifying, but which will surely have a small, but genuine impact on individual's engagement and possibly voting intentions.
Never before have I been more ashamed that I'm a British person. I'm really tempted to just pack up and leave, though I know it's something that is bound to happen in the majority of habitable countries around the world in the coming years.
Never before have I been more ashamed that I'm a British person. I'm really tempted to just pack up and leave, though I know it's something that is bound to happen in the majority of habitable countries around the world in the coming years.
Never before have I been more ashamed that I'm a British person. I'm really tempted to just pack up and leave, though I know it's something that is bound to happen in the majority of habitable countries around the world in the coming years.
Never before have I been more ashamed that I'm a British person. I'm really tempted to just pack up and leave, though I know it's something that is bound to happen in the majority of habitable countries around the world in the coming years.
Never before have I been more ashamed that I'm a British person. I'm really tempted to just pack up and leave, though I know it's something that is bound to happen in the majority of habitable countries around the world in the coming years.
Never before have I been more ashamed that I'm a British person. I'm really tempted to just pack up and leave, though I know it's something that is bound to happen in the majority of habitable countries around the world in the coming years.
Never before have I been more ashamed that I'm a British person. I'm really tempted to just pack up and leave, though I know it's something that is bound to happen in the majority of habitable countries around the world in the coming years.
Never before have I been more ashamed that I'm a British person. I'm really tempted to just pack up and leave, though I know it's something that is bound to happen in the majority of habitable countries around the world in the coming years.
Never before have I been more ashamed that I'm a British person. I'm really tempted to just pack up and leave, though I know it's something that is bound to happen in the majority of habitable countries around the world in the coming years.
Never before have I been more ashamed that I'm a British person. I'm really tempted to just pack up and leave, though I know it's something that is bound to happen in the majority of habitable countries around the world in the coming years.
Excellent comment Adrian – thanks for sharing.
Excellent comment Adrian – thanks for sharing.
Excellent comment Adrian – thanks for sharing.
Excellent comment Adrian – thanks for sharing.
Excellent comment Adrian – thanks for sharing.
Excellent comment Adrian – thanks for sharing.
Excellent comment Adrian – thanks for sharing.
Excellent comment Adrian – thanks for sharing.
Excellent comment Adrian – thanks for sharing.
Makes me want to shit all over.
Makes me want to shit all over.
Makes me want to shit all over.
Makes me want to shit all over.
There is a loophole in the act. It allows an ISP to write a “code” or regulations about how the bill will be enforced. The ISP can require the copyright owner to have made prior provision with the ISP to notify them of copyright violations, and that the ISP can set a minimum threshold for the number of violations which must occur before it will accept any complaint. The violations which occur prior to reaching that threshold cannot be investigated or part of the complaint. It also allows the ISP to require payment IN ADVANCE towards the ISP's costs for investigations.
OFCOM will have to approve any such ISP regulations, so the real impact of the bill will be determined by OFCOM.
There is a loophole in the act. It allows an ISP to write a “code” or regulations about how the bill will be enforced. The ISP can require the copyright owner to have made prior provision with the ISP to notify them of copyright violations, and that the ISP can set a minimum threshold for the number of violations which must occur before it will accept any complaint. The violations which occur prior to reaching that threshold cannot be investigated or part of the complaint. It also allows the ISP to require payment IN ADVANCE towards the ISP's costs for investigations.
OFCOM will have to approve any such ISP regulations, so the real impact of the bill will be determined by OFCOM.
This is a HUGE Fail. I thought we were fighting for freedom and democracy, not closing down and taking away more of our freedoms… Makes me ashamed of being a Brit – abroad even!
It is surprised me, i just want shit all over that.
R4i SDCH