In response to  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=491923&in_page_id=1770 which was actually about the DNA database 

 This government has quietly dismantled huge sections of parliamentary process that has served to protect the rights of individuals for centuries.

Since the government have a massive majority, any government bill is practically guaranteed to be passed without real debate.  This means that headline-chasing nonsense is constantly added to a legal system which was already hard to understand, and which struggles to address the roots of crime in social problems which exist today. 

Forget the statistics, check the numbers.  Gun crime is responsible for less than 100 deaths a year, knife crime fewer than 500, road deaths less than 3,500; homicide less than 1,000.  With a population of over 60 million, those are low numbers. You are more likely to win the lottery than to be murdered.

Over 11,000 women died from breast cancer in 2002;  BHS figures show that over 130,000 people die of heart attacks annually. But we live in a climate of fear & moral panic created by the media. YOUR vote

Reference material
Guns & Knives http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

Murders http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Heart Attacks http://www.criticalillness.co.uk/stats.html

Road Deaths http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5387568.stm 
 

They sent me an email response apologising for the misinformation (before the current person was there...) and advising that the page has now been removed

As part of my opposition to the CJIB proposal on extreme pornography, I research various women's groups which campaign about violence against women

The Fawcett Society http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=67 states

The End Violence Against Women Coalition, of which Fawcett is a part, wants as many MPs as possible to sign this EDM (http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29380&SESSION=875) The motion was introduced by Vera Baird MP, who is also the Chair of the Fawcett Commission on Women and the Criminal Justice System

Not only did Vera Baird not introduce it (Mike Penning did)  She hasn't even signed it.

It also says absolutely NOTHING about pornography so any reference to it as support should be challenged

EDM 1038     END VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN CAMPAIGN15.11.2005
Penning, Mike
That this House condemns all forms of violence against women; notes that almost half of women experience domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking in their lifetime and that at least 200 women are forced into marriage and 2000 women are trafficked into the UK for sexual exploitation each year; and therefore supports the End Violence Against Women Campaign's call for an integrated approach to addressing violence against women in all its forms.

[QUOTE=another site] Oh yeah? do get real please. if Backlash HAD "organised" such a meeting it would have been headline news splashed all over the net..and it wasn't. Ergo it didn't happen. The likeliest possibility is that a Backlash supporter managed to get into one of the routinely called discussion groups that precedes such legislation. Since the law concerns pornography it would be most likely that publishers etc would be invited to such a group.
Secondly..if Backlash had got the clarification they sought then why are they now opposing this legislation? Heck..all they need apparently is another cosy chat with the powers that be since they are so well in with them!
Thirdly why are any Backlash members still on the net? If they genuinely believe this is the start of an anti-BDSM/CP pogrom logic would have them all busily cleaning their hard drives and keeping their heads well down. They don't because they KNOW they are in no danger at all so they can posture and prance around playing the big tough heroes.
roddy[/QUOTE]

1st : Backlash is an 'umbrella organisation' of several groups and individuals who are opposed to the proposed legislation. On April 19th 2006, Backlash attended a Home Office meeting in company with representatives of the Spanner Trust and SM Pride. The Home Office were responsible for "organising" that meeting and the summary was reported on their website. You may also be interested to know that backlash has been quoted and represented on mainstream TV and radio : check http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/press.html for some links
.
2nd : "Clarification" was not backlash' primary objective. Check their website page if you honestly do want to know why backlash still oppose the proposed legislation. Summary here, detail on the link
[QUOTE]
1 The claims the Government and other supporters made in the media are spin rather than fact
2 The justifications given in official Government documents don't stand up to scrutiny
3 The legislation would have serious unintended consequences
4 The whole proposal is shot through with hypocrisy
5 The legislation is likely to breach the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act, according to Rabinder Singh QC. [/QUOTE]
3rd : backlash doesn't have 'members', only supporters, detractors (who are sometimes irrationally hostile) while the majority of the population have never heard of them. There is no joining fee, no membership card, no badge, no uniform, no regimental mascot, not even a free pencil or bus-ticket.
Nor a single hero in sight, tough or otherwise. Never really thought of myself as a 'big, tough hero' : don't expect that Feminists Against Censorship or the Libertarian Alliance see themselves that way either

write to your MP, the Home Office, your mum, the golf club, your dentist, anyone you think might be able to see past the moral panic and hysteria. If you choose to, you can refer to the briefing pack which backlash sent to each and every MP and Lord in Parliament
[url=http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Violent-Porn/] and you can sign the petition from here[/url]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6155932.stm 

Politicians ar elected to represent the people of this country.  To suggest that one of the means of communication with those people should be closed off because the content is unwelcome and critical of the government is perhaps a pointer to their inability to deal adequately with real democracy.

Should we expect a new law to criminalise blogging?

Remember the Abolition of Parliament Bill? The one back in the spring, which could have been used to end democracy as we know it?

It is still at large, and making its way through Parliament.  Thanks to you, it is much less dangerous than it was. But it is still quite dangerous.

Yesterday the House of Lords voted to make the Bill safer.  And lost. By just 13 votes. 
At first we growled and shouted in frustration! But then we realised that there's another chance. 
There'll be a final vote this Thursday.

And you can help.

We'd like you to write to a Member of the House of Lords.

Here's how to do it. It'll only take you a moment, and this time we know it really can make a difference.

1. Go to http://www.writetothem.com/lords

2. Click "Random Lord" near the bottom of the page.

3. If you get a Labour peer, then click the back button and press "Random Lord" again. No point writing to

Government peers on this one. Labour, Liberal Democrat, Crossbench, Bishops etc. are all fine.

4. Write a letter making the following points in your own words:

* The Third Reading (that's the last one in the House of Lords) of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is this coming Thursday, 2nd November.

* Explain to the Lord how important Parliament is to hold the Government's power in balance, and how you

would not like to see this Bill passed in a form which would weaken Parliament.

* In the first clause of the Bill, there is a section which says that the purpose of the Bill is to "reduce burdens".

Unfortunately, all it says is that the *Minister* must consider whether the change in law he wants to make reduces burdens.

This is better than the original Bill at the start of the year, but it is still not good enough.

* Say that you would like the phrase "he considers" to be removed from the Bill, so that any law changed under it must be considered burden reducing by any reasonable person.  Rather than by a possibly unreasonable Minister.

(you can skip the last two points if it seems too complicated to explain; the next one is the key one)

* Ask the Lord to attend Parliament on Thursday, and vote for any opposition amendments which remove the phrase "he considers", or otherwise make the Bill safer.

* Ask your Lord to vote *against* passing the Third Reading of the Bill if the phrase "he considers" is not removed.

* And thank them!

5. Send the letter. You're done.

More detailed background information about what is going on:

http://bill111.wordpress.com/2006/10/27/house-of-lords-report-stage-debate/

Here is the part of the Bill with the "he considers" section in it:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/161/06161.1-7.html#jNC19

There were just 13 votes in it yesterday. We really can win this one. Thanks to your help!

Please write to your Lord now.

Francis Irving

Campaigns Director

Save Parliament