Pride purges the truth

(not satire - It's Tom Pride!)

Pride's Purge has a somewhat distorted post today.

He has decided to highlight 21 things that the Lib Dems "didn't bother" to veto. And then juxtaposed this against the one thing that he suggests they have vetoed, the mandatory second strike knife crime suggestion from David Cameron. He's even got a graphic and everything, look:

Now I suspect some Lib Dems would quibble with the description of some of those in the right hand column but let's leave that to one side.

The biggest problem with this list is that there is way more than one thing the Lib Dems have vetoed in government. Here is a list gleaned from comments by both Nick Clegg and David Cameron:

• Cuts to inheritance tax
• Bringing back O levels
• Profit making in schools
• New childcare ratios
• Firing workers at will with no reason needing to be given
• Regional pay in the public sector
• Scrapping housing benefit for under 25s
• Ditching the Human Rights Act
• Weakening protections in the Equality Act
• Boundary changes
• Various measures on the environment
• Automatic renewal of Trident
• Reducing top rate of tax to 40%
• Snoopers' Charter

And I am sure there are loads of others too.

Tom, if you're going to run a "satirical" blog trying to score points off everyone except Labour, at least get your basic facts right.

Surely you can find real things to attack the Lib Dems for rather than just making shit up?

My experiences with smartphone content blocking

I've read a couple of articles in recent days about how UK mobile phone operators are blocking content such as political satire and LGBT news sites by default.

I think the idea is that "mature" content is set to be opt in in order to prevent younger eyes from seeing "adult" things. There is certainly a strong debate to be had about whether you need to be 18 before you can read political satire and information about LGBT issues and I know which side I would come down on.

I just wanted however to briefly share my experiences in this area as they may help to shed some light on the approach of the mobile phone ISPs.

Over the last 18 months I spent several months in hospital because of a family situation and I relied heavily on my iPhone to keep in touch with what was happening in the world during breaks between being in the ward. As I am a political animal I of course wanted to keep abreast of what was happening on the political blogs. However I discovered in October 2011 that my Vodafone account was blocking access to Political Betting. This is one of my favourite sites which has incisive analysis on political trends and also often fascinating discussions in the comment threads from in the main highly informed people who often have a financial interest in their predictions. But I guess the fact that the site is linked with betting means that Vodafone considers it to be "mature content" (even though usually the posts are just political analysis and the betting side of it is often implicit).

Anyway I called them up and asked for the block to be taken off. It took about 48 hours but they did so and I thought everything was from then on going to be OK. But a few months later, when we were in hospital again I suddenly found that Political Betting was blocked again. I was on the same contract and had made no request for the filter to be reapplied. I must admit I was quite annoyed and I called up in order to complain and to get the filter taken off again. I was somewhat surprised to find when I got through to the customer services that when I complained the chap I was speaking to took umbrage with me. He stated that Vodafone are under no obligation to take this filter off, they were not accountable for the filter being reapplied and that they were essentially doing me a favour by taking it off at all and I should be grateful, not complaining.

I was pretty taken aback. I had been assertive in my complaint but not rude. I am always mindful in these situations that the call handler is not responsible for the policy but I felt I had every right to complain. I was paying £40+ per month for a smartphone internet service and they were blocking content that I had already told them I wanted.

The call operator insisted on me apologising before we continued. Even though I felt my tone and comments had been fair, I did apologise and we moved on. After this he was friendly and efficient and did take the block off. As far as I know it has been off since.

But what really stuck in my mind was not the argument about the tone of my complaint but the fact that the operator apparently following the policy of Vodafone was so insistent that to allow me full access to the internet was Vodafone doing me a favour! I found this very worrying. Why should a private company be deciding what I can and cannot read online when what I want to read is perfectly legal? It sounded to me like if they so decided they could reapply the filter, refuse to turn it off and I would have no recourse.

If this is right then I think it shines a light on the approach of Vodafone and I suspect other telcos. They think allowing us access to things like betting sites, political satire, LGBT information and "adult content" of other types is a nice extra but not something they need to do. I think this is totally wrong and demonstrates to me why this idea of "opt out" services is so flawed.

In my opinion anyone over the age of 18 should have full access to all legal content on the internet by default. They should not have to go crawling supplicant-like to their ISP to beg them to take the filter off and be told they are being done a favour.

The only person who should be deciding if content is right for my eyes is me.