Britain is not 'broken', the media is.

Thanks to a reader, I have been alerted to the news that Alfie Patton is not the father, as was once suggested - see my blog here

It seems that there is barely any news anywhere on the subject, perhaps because its not so sexy now that the 'youngest father' in Britain is not really the father. It took a feedly search to find any news on the subject, and all I got was a blog. (and, by the way, my feedly RSS gets all the major UK news sources, shocking, really.)

So is this a surprise?

Not really. Perhaps the media don't like to admit they are wrong - the Sun will do anything to sell their newspapers, but not to damage their own credibility at publishing false stories. The Hillsborough disaster is a case in point - the author has never retracted his story.

Britain is not broken - the media is.

Queues

A great British tradition.
Christmas Shopping at HMV.
Miles away from the counter!
-- Post From My iPhone

Child Pornography, or Art?

---

Wikipedia child image censored

Wikipedia allows readers to edit the content of its pages

A decision by a number of UK internet providers to block a Wikipedia page showing an image of a naked girl has angered users of the popular site.

The blocked page of the online encyclopaedia shows an album cover of German heavy metal band Scorpions.

Internet providers acted after online watchdog the Internet Watch Foundation warned them its picture may be illegal.

Some volunteers who run Wikipedia said it was not for the foundation to censor one of the web's most popular sites.

They also argued that the image was available in a number of books and had never been ruled illegal.

But the IWF, which warns internet providers about possible images that could be linked to child abuse, said it had consulted the police before making its decision.

The foundation's list of proscribed sites is widely used by British internet service providers to filter out images showing child abuse and other illegal content.

It's the first time they've done this on such a visible site David Gerard, Wikipedia volunteer

As a result, the addition of the Scorpions Wikipedia page has made it inaccessible to the majority of British internet users.

A spokeswoman for the IWF, which lists its members as including the BBC, AOL (UK), Ask and News International, suggested as many as 95% of British users would now be unable to access the page.

Wikipedia volunteer David Gerard said he and fellow users were angry that as well as the photo, the text on the page had been blocked.

"Blocking text is a whole new thing - it's the first time they've done this on such a visible site," he said.

Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation, which manages the encyclopaedia, said the removal of the page also appeared to have stopped thousands of UK users from editing articles on Wikipedia, which allows readers to self-edit its pages.

"It appears that there's a large number of editors - I can't say all - who appear to have access issues," he said.

The IWF spokeswoman said a reader had brought the image to the foundation's attention last week and it had contacted the police before adding the page to their list.

Wikipedia is one of the world's most popular websites. It is a multi-lingual online database written, edited and funded largely by its users. It has 2.6m articles in English alone.

(Source: BBC)

---

Child Pornography, or Art?

The Album the news is referring to, is Scorpions album "Virgin Killer" released in the 1970s - (access to wikipedia to find out if you can get to the page for UK users).

Reading further into Wikipedia's own entry on the controversy, I found that:

"The filtering is in response to the Internet Watch Foundation’s list of websites that host or contain content that have been reported to contain inappropriate images of naked children,(those under the age of 18). The IWF considers those images child pornography. However, in the United States (where the websites of the Wikimedia Foundation are hosted), it is not considered obscene under the criteria of the Miller test, which requires that an obscene work lack “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value” (as album art is used to “brand” the album, it is considered to be artistic)."

This then, brings the question of whether we can consider such controversial images as Art. The crucial thing to note between the US and UK system of laws is that the UK is not protected by any Bill of Rights and I would assume that the "Miller test" which makes this kind of controversial image legal in the US is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The UK however, is not given this kind of protection in the constitution as we are bound to the 1998 Human Rights Act, which is subject to EU Human Rights legislation. There appears to be a case for a new bill, which is advocated by David Cameron.

I am not defending child pornography in any way, but freedom of speech, freedom of art and publication and expression is at the very foundation of our society. I have already looked into recently the criticism of Alan Carr, Russell Brand and Jonathon Ross in two blogs (One and Two).

Unfortunately because there is no real Bill of Rights in the UK protecting free speech (something that we really ought to sort out in the 21st Century), I cannot give any further analysis without viewing the image, which at the moment being considered "Child Porn", I could arrested for viewing and publicising the picture for something which is arguably art.

I would argue however, if it can pass the US litmus test for appropiate freedom of expression, then surely it can be accepted in our own society. The real crime here, is the true lack of any established bill of rights universally - if it can pass a western democracy with the power and stature in the world like the United States of America, then why not here in the United Kingdom.

Protect Art.

Protect Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression.

The argument against the publication or viewing of the album cover that it personifies and encourages child porn is akin to saying watching Texas Chainsaw Massacre will make us all like Edward Gein.

It would seem the media lately are having a particular moral panic and we cannot be trusted in the UK to use our common sense to say that such work (however distasteful) is art, not child It would not seem that the cover to Nirvana's "Nevermind" album is censored, it does feature a naked baby afterall. Is this "art" or child pornography? Art. And though it is apparently on the grey area whether I can look at the Scorpions album cover or not for legal reasons, I would argue anyway on the same grounds that artistic integrity should be protected, not just because somebody is offended by a particular image of particular expression. If the Virgin Killer album cover is censored for a depiction of 'child porn' and not art, then how the Nevermind album cover is free from scrutiny I will never know. I would like to think we can acheive some sort of moral standand. At the moment this smacks of nothing but double standards, and freedom of speech and expression has gone down the toilet because somebody raised a red flag because they were offended. Again.

If such arguments and events are a sign of things to come, then we have let the dark side of humanity win, and not our good side.

I would hope, that we can all use our common sense when it comes to moral issues and controversial subjects. Perhaps then we will actually get somewhere without seemingly pressing the panic button at every opportunity.

Broken Society?

Two of the biggest stories of the week - the conviction of Karen Matthews and the resignation of Roy Keane as Sunderland FC Manager in the English Football Premier League - and the commentary surrounding the characters brings an interesting discussion on British Society when you consider:

- Karen Matthews, a sociopath who placed her own interest above those of her children
- Roy Keane's "volatile temper" and past behaviour.




As it turns out, the Roy Keane tackle (the second one in the video) was intended
, and received nothing more than a fine and suspension from playing. An injustice on this account surely?

On the Karen Matthews case, Debroah Orr makes the case of a Broken Society and mentions Beatrix Campbell giving a defence of Karen Matthews' character, treated differently because of class when compared to the similar Madeleine McCann case.

Arguably it was even considered by the most popular newspaper (albeit controversial) as an injustice that a reward of a mere £20,000 at the time was for Shannon Matthews' discovery, compared to the one offered for Madeleine McCann.

Now, I am not arguing that Karen Matthews is innocent - far from it. She is an example of parenting at its worst, it is horrible how she could have treated her daughter that way. However, her crime aside, the case of a working class compared to that of the McCanns - middle class - and how the McCanns sued whatever came their way; all this is an indication that people can be treated differently because of class.

Even the high profile case of Roy Keane, who intended on injuring a player on the football field - and succeeded - received a fine when he should have, in any other walk of life, been prosecuted for his actions.

I am not a Marxist at all, but everyone should be, I beleive, treated as equal before the law. Clearly in these instances, this does not seem to be realised. Perhaps this is a case of all that is wrong with society - we surely can't hope to fix it unless we get the fundamentals right and treat everyone equally.

The facts, as Beatrix Campbell rightly pointed out (see link to article above) that the McCanns are officially suspects, and last time I checked, they are living free and still raising for the Madeleine fund as recently as last month.

My qualm, is not with whether the McCanns are guilty or innocent - but that they were treated differently by society, meeting foreign dignitaries, when children go missing every day in Britain. That, regardless of class, is an injustice itself. The Roy Keane case, likewise, a millionaire footballer was treated very lightly over his alleged 'crime'. This is all indicative of one rule for some, one for another.

Sadly, evidence would suggest that we are living in a broken society - our culture, media, our attitudes to life are all responsible.

Perhaps we should get back to the drawing board...