The One Click Group

The One Click Group
Health Advocacy

RSS Feed Follow OneClickGroup on Twitter

Dr Iain Stephenson
Found Guilty of Vaccine
Research Fraud
The One Click Group

Mobilising ME/CFS Charities
To Smash Flawed
PACE Trial Results
Lara, Health Advocate

UK Public Health
In Dire Straits
Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS

Lies Damned Lies
Swine Flu
Statistics Exposed
By Lara

Vaccination Graphs
The Awful Stats In Action
Raymond Obomsawin Ph.D

Issues In Immunization
Theory And Practice
Raymond Obomsawin Ph.D

March 2010

One Click
Of Information
UK Police Harassment
In The Internet Era

Barbara Loe Fisher
NVIC Conference
Style, Gonads
Brass Ovaries
By Jane Bryant

New Journalism
Status Quo
By Jane Bryant
NVIC Conference

How The
Judicial Review
NICE Guidelines
Was Lost
Jane Bryant
The One Click Group

Vaccines Propaganda
David Salisbury
Public Relations

David Southall
"A Very
Dangerous Doctor"
Panorama swims
with sharks
Lisa Blakemore Brown

Dr David Salisbury
Never Mind Me,
I'm Basil Fawlty!

David Salisbury
Vaccine Litigation

The Politics
And Commerce
Of Autism
By Lisa Blakemore Brown

Vaccine/Autism Case
Mitochondrial Disfunction
ME/CFS Patients

The Consensus Report
Family Law Reform

Canadian Definition of ME-CFS

The Weird World of Wikipedia
By Martin J. Walker

Click here to email us with any thoughts or opinions you wish to share about the website.


News Archives 3341-3360
Number Title Post Date
3341 Stop Spying On WikiLeaks 28/03/2010 13:21:05
3342 Consumer Rights Briefing On UK Digital Economy Bill For MPs 28/03/2010 13:27:28
3343 Two More MP Rent Boys For Sale - Lobbygate Britain Steams On 28/03/2010 13:29:43
3344 Israeli Soldiers Sue For Millions Over Anthrax Vaccine Experiment 29/03/2010 10:03:07
3345 Corrupt Lobbygate Parliament Wash Up - Digital Economy Bill 29/03/2010 10:07:36
3346 New Swine Flu Report Reveals WHO & Public Health Corruption 29/03/2010 10:16:13
3347 Social Worker David Morris Struck Off For Molesting Disabled Boys 30/03/2010 11:38:19
3348 New Report - Seriously Ill & Disabled People Denied Help By UK Government 30/03/2010 11:41:36
3349 Time For Truth About Gardasil Vaccine 30/03/2010 11:46:16
3350 Corrupt Lobbygate Parliament Refuses To Debate Digital Economy Bill 30/03/2010 11:48:52
3351 Digital Economy Bill - Stop Disconnection Flashmob, Thursday, London UK 30/03/2010 11:52:23
3352 Microchipped Pets Develop Fast-Growing, Lethal Tumors 31/03/2010 14:29:38
3353 Whatever Happened To Psychiatrist Charles Nemeroff Probe? 31/03/2010 14:34:31
3354 Respect - Harris Coulter Was a Brave Visionary 31/03/2010 14:37:50
3355 Bulgarian Health Minister Resigns Over Swine Flu Pharma Scandal 31/03/2010 14:43:44
3356 Lobbygate Britain - Health Service Tried To Buy John Hemming MP 31/03/2010 14:48:42
3357 Digital Economy Bill Should Wait For Next Government, Say Liberal Democrats 31/03/2010 14:52:58
3358 Stop UK Internet Disconnection! Flashmob Digital Economy Bill Publishes Meeting Point 31/03/2010 14:57:42
3359 One Click Stats - 31 March 2010 31/03/2010 15:03:41
3360 Psychologist Child Abuser Set For Further Exposure 01/04/2010 18:49:59

[Previous] [Next]

Digital Economy Bill Should Wait For Next Government, Say Liberal Democrats
Share |

30 March 2010
Liberal Democrats say Digital Economy bill should wait for next government
By Charles Arthur

Controversial bill should not be pushed through at tail-end of Parliament, says chief whip as government pushes new clause

Protestors at Parliament objecting to the provisions of the Digital Economy bill

The Liberal Democrats have called for the Digital Economy bill to be scrapped and re-introduced afresh in the next Parliament, and say they will oppose its rushed passage if, as expected, it is speeded through to become law in the "wash-up" ahead of a general election.

Paul Burstow, the Liberal Democrat chief whip, told the Guardian that although the party's opposition might not be enough on its own to prevent the bill from passing, he hoped that the arguments being put forward - that the issues needed more debate than has been possible - might sway one of the other parties into delaying its passage.

"During the negotiation and discussion in the wash-up we will make it clear that we think that it isn't a suitable way to deal with the issues remaining such as site blocking," Burstow said. "We will put amendments down and make the case and hope that the government and the Conservatives will agree that it shouldn't proceed at this stage," Burstow said.

The bill has proved controversial principally because it would require internet service providers (ISPs) to monitor internet connections provide details in cases of alleged copyright infringement, and the powers that it gives to "copyright holders" - expected mainly to be record labels and film companies - to lay accusations against people who might then see their internet connection suspended without proof of wrongdoing. It also contains provisions that could lead to sites which are "mostly infringing" of copyright being blocked by ISPs. That could mean that a site such as Wikileaks, which acts as a conduit for documents leaked anonymously by whistleblowers, would vanish from the internet as seen in Britain.

On Tuesday night the government published a new clause 18 for the bill to replace one which has raised the ire of lobbying groups. The key difference from the previous clause appears to be that the secretary of state for business would have the final say on whether an internet site could be blocked.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills says of the addition: "the new clause sets out to achieve the main aims of the original clause 18, but with some new safeguards:
"The new clause is a legally enforceable version of the clause inserted by the Opposition, with additional safeguards:
"It provides for a limited power to propose regulations in the future. The regulations would allow copyright owners to apply for court injunctions. These injunctions would require ISPs (or other service providers) to block access to specified internet locations providing access to copyright infringing material;
"The safeguards are extensive, including provisions on consultation, threshold and proportionality, Parliamentary accountability, legitimate use of websites, freedom of speech, and ensuring due court process."

Hundreds of people protested outside Parliament last week over those provisions of the bill. The Open Rights Group has also been critical of the amount of time that has been devoted to debating it: while it has had three readings in the House of Lords, including a committee stage, it has had only one reading in the Commons, and if it proceeds to the "wash-up" it will not receive a detailed line-by-line examination in committee. Instead, it would be pushed through with the minimum of debate.

The bill's second reading in the Commons is scheduled for Tuesday 6 April, when Gordon Brown is also expected to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament ahead of a general election on 6 May. That would trigger the fast-track "wash-up" where legislation that has passed through one house of Parliament will be considered by all the main party whips for royal assent. Typically, bills required to keep the process of government going - such as the Budget or finance bills - are nodded through in a truncated third reading.

Doing that with the Digital Economy bill could prove more controversial if the government puts it into the wash-up, says Burstow. "We will vote against it at the third reading," he said.

Burstow said that discussions about the parties' positions occur all the time as part of Parliamentary business. "The question will be whether these concerns are shared by one of the other parties." Such opposition would constitute an obstacle to the bill, rather than a roadblock, he acknowledged. "We're putting down some markers."

"It might be that this is legislation where there's recognition that it need more time to be properly scrutinised, which isn't possible this close to a general election," Burstow said.

The question of whether the bill has had sufficient debate has also caused a row between the BPI, which represents record labels and backs the bill, and the Open Rights Group, which opposes its strictures on internet users and says it would choke off services such as public Wi-Fi. The ORG says that the bill has had insufficient debating time in the Commons, and has challenged the BPI to say whether it thinks the time allotted - expected to amount to about 90 minutes - is sufficient for a bill of this importance. The BPI says that the time allotted is a matter for the party managers - but has declined so far to answer queries raised by Guardian columnist Cory Doctorow on whether it thinks the time allotted under the present timetable is sufficient.

Thousands of letters have been sent to MPs by constituents via the 38 Degrees site complaining at the lack of debate of the bill.

Related Links:
* Corrupt Lobbygate Parliament Refuses To Debate Digital Economy Bill
Cory Doctorow, The Guardian
* Lobbygate - Dirty Law Political Rent Boys & Girls Rule OK In Britain
Peter Mandelson Skewered Over Digital Economy Bill
Jane Bryant, The One Click Group
UK Web Hosting by Wed, March 31st, 2010. 02:52 pm