this is not the actions of a democracy, it is the actions of a demoratically elected dictatorship where the people in power maintain a facade of freedom and actually they continue their own agenda separate to that of the electorate

The pirates will just move to a different technology that can't be blocked - distributed databases, proxies, TOR... the list goes on. Does anyone seriously think blocking piratebay and a few dozen other torrent repositories will actually reduce piracy? If so, they don't understand the internet.

Where did the author learn to speak English? America?

"The Conservative party has today published its own technology plans, and TOO favours the disconnection approach."

Try "ALSO". Works much better. Except possibly in America where it is apparently acceptable to begin a sentence with "Too".

Talktalk internet speeds are lower than Bethere, even though I was told I would get the same speed - free upgrade to "upto24mb".

Talktalk Dlink router keeps disconnecting approx 1 or more times per hour. I've had Dlink in the past and they have been fine.

I have not moved addressed, I have only changed broadband provider.

I phoned Talktalk and got talking to some nice sounding halpful people. But still the internet runs intermittantly.

Talktalk is cheap, unreliable and speeds are lower than competitors.

If they cannot fix this then I will be going back to Bethere.

Bethere were consistently fast, reliable and priced cheaply for the upto24mb package. However they do not do a "phone and internet" deal which is why I went with Talktalk.

I will give Talktalk a week or so to fix this, if they cannot then I will switch back to Betere.

The Inquirer - a suggestion. Can you please put a "comment on this article" at the end of the existing comments section please? Would make it even easier to comment. Thanks.

My comment was for mike.

@bigger_luditte "If a site if full of unlawful content, I have no issues with that site being blocked."
Your argument goes back to the beginning. Who decides what is legal or not legal. Keep the criminals out off this equation. The report here is about one body deciding criminal law, excluding everyone else, which then leads us to a dictatorship vs a democracy.

you must state from the start that you wish a jury trial, and continue to INSIST on it despite that you won't get one in "traffic court". Submit the motion in writing, and get a copy of it from the court clerk. IF a judge or clerk refuses to accept such motion, they are committing a serious crime. -- A jury trial in even "mere" speeding cases is a RIGHT, and it can still be had. -- Actually, once you're to that stage, the prosecutor will likely drop the case so a loss won't be on his record.

Once you get past the notion that "laws" and the system are there to protect and benefit *you*, much becomes clear.

Don't believe what lawyers tell you: they're members of "the bar", their only interest is cash, which means promoting the system. As Shakespeare said, "There's boundless theft in limited professions." If you want to be shocked by what insanity "professionals" take seriously, just search out what "the bar" is, and why attorneys must speak for you.

Don't you think it is strange that several countries have suddenly the same kind of law proposals (see France and its Hadopi Law) ?.
The entertainment industry surely has very very powerful and dark connections with politicians in order to get those results.
Open your eyes people.
Laurel and Hardy, look at their career : they ended up miserably because they signed poor contracts. The system is not designed to protect artists rights, it is to keep the power in a fem people's hands.

Agreed, 'criminals' have a say in this, my point was about 'prisoners' and the fact that a 'right' is retractable under some circumstances, and that can include their voice in the legal system. A convicted felon can not serve as a juror, for example.

"Unlawful" is unlawful regardless of if you get caught, let alone go to trial, but I agree that a jury should be used in instances where the wigged ones can't just throw out the case immediately. The thing is, here in the USA you don't get a right to trial by jury for misdemeanors and minor crimes like speeding tickets, so depending on how the crime is classified that right may not be a right at all.

Next on the hit list are libraries, public, private, government and education.
People check books, music, “Media” out, and they might make copies to share with their friends, they might read them to their children. But it was only checked out to one person and only that one person was granted a license to use the media.
Mark my words, these laws will be used against libraries in due time.

criminals DO have a say in *this*, in the following way: criminal types go into gov't because that's where the money and power is; other criminals pay off those in gov't to get special privileges. I don't at all accept your apparent assumption that gov't or corporations can be trusted to even tell the truth in these cases.

But, supposing you agree with the above, "unlawful" should mean only after public trial by a jury of peers. Courts are otherwise mere shams, because they're *all* in gov't and share an interest in power, besides get their money from its always evil, even if necessary, machinations.

By the way, I'm aware that in formal British argumentation, rambling mildly for half an hour and concluding with "so you see, the best course isn't entirely clear" may in fact indicate the strongest possible opposition. Even so, I think the bit I quoted above should have been more strongly phrased.

I am against spammers, identity thiefs and bootleggers.

I am also against DRM, rootkitsl and getting disconnected by big brother (well, generally), but I think the wrong arguments are being put forward here.

Society should not be made more dependent on the 'net, it should be made robust and independent of infrastructure as much as possible.

Also, the idea that a bill is wrong because "someone got to have input twice" is misleading: notice they don't say in that statement that only one party had input both times. It's only implied, and impied on purpose.

Also, how are 'all parties' going to have a voice? Shall file sharers and boot leggers be invited to the table? Why not let murders and rapists have a say at how long mandatory sentences shall be?

A right is a right only when it's not abused. Prisoners loose a great many rights. If a site if full of unlawful content, I have no issues with that site being blocked.

When the only thing you can use said speed for is piracy, which will get you disconnected...

I think I read about this in a book somewhere, something about making breathing illegal so everyone would be in violation of the law and thus subject to arbitrary punishment. Great. Never met a single person who didn't violate copyright law, probably never will.

You can be oppressed by corporations too, and when they buy politicians and get in league with them, it's a grave danger.

"The Group added that by not involving all parties in the drawing of such rules, the government was risking increases in other areas of net control and censorship." -- Are you really so naive to think that government is *worried* by that "risk"? Can you point me to *one* gov't that doesn't work toward that goal?