On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 18:21 +0100, Terry Coles wrote: > On Thursday 25 Mar 2010, Terry Coles wrote: > > Whatever the truth, here is what Annette Brooke (LibDem for Mid Dorset and > > Poole North) said to me in response to my letter through the 38 Degrees > > site: > > > > "Thank you for your message calling for the Digital Economy Bill to receive > > proper parliamentary debate. Time is running out for the present > > Parliament and from today until Easter the Commons will be debating the > > Budget. I am watching the timetable for the Commons but at this stage > > it is not clear if the Bill will get a Second Reading in the Commons, > > although it is still possible. I am very concerned that the Bill should > > receive proper scrutiny and I will update you in due course.'" > > > > I received that yesterday, presumably before the date for the debate was > > set. > > After the short note last week Annette Brooke sent a much much longer > blanket > message that the disclaimer in the footer said was confidential to the > recipient (although it was BCCd to lots of people presumably). > > In essence is says that the LibDems are going to pass the bill pretty much as > it is because there are lots of good things that are needed in it. To get > the > good; they are going to swallow the bad. What this means of course is that > the bill has been framed to ensure that unpopular and unfair measures get > forced through because no-one wants to railroad the good stuff. > > The message claimed that the LibDem amendments included some safeguards, > including the following requirements: > > 1. copyright infringers are notified by letter, without any risk of their > internet connection being affected, for at least a year > 2. an evaluation of the effectiveness of such "soft measures" is undertaken > 3. an evaluation of the need for, and likely effectiveness of, technical > measures has been completed > 4. further consultation has taken place > 5. proposed legislation is brought before parliament for decision, and > 6. any process to disconnect users explicitly assumes their innocence until > they are proven guilty > > I suspect that on their own the LibDems can't achieve much anyway, so it > remains to be seen how the bill works in practice. > > -- > Terry Coles > 64 bit computing with Kubuntu Linux > http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/8357/digital-economy-bill-protests-spread-across-the-uk/
Peter M: -- Next meeting: Bournemouth, Wed 2010-04-07 20:00 http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2645413 Chat: http://www.mibbit.com/?server=irc.blitzed.org&channel=%23dorset List info: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dorset
