I've been trying to think of a subject that I could write about for a couple of weeks now and I've made a list of possibilities. None of them struck me as particularly worthwhile and most have already been discussed in detail elsewhere in the media.

Then, as I was reading through my list, it occurred to me that a lot of the subjects had one thing in common.

Chilcot Enquiry - Elegantly summed up by George Galloway, of all people, on Question Time. I won't quote him but I'll stay as true to what he said as I can remember; In the unlikely event that the enquiry finds that the war against Iraq was illegal nobody will face prosecution because there was no intent to break the law.

MP's expenses - Over half of our elected representatives over-claimed on their expenses. Their excuses were the usual waffle about innocent mistakes etc. and none of them felt honour bound to resign. Three "Honourable Members" face prosecution and decide to invoke Parliamentary Privilege to avoid it, again proving what a shocking bunch of bad hats still occupy Westminster. To top it all off we discover that it has cost us more to investigate than will actually be paid back.

Bank Charges - I'm no accountant so perhaps I didn't fully understand the way things were dealt with, but here goes. The OFT said that the charges were unfair. The banks challenged this through a test case in the legal system, not by fighting the accusation but by asking the court to decide if the OFT had the right to decide whether the charges were unfair as they were part of the banks' core business and hence not part of the OFT's remit. The court decided in the banks' favour mainly because it was a point of law cleverly figured out by their team of lawyers. A layman's summary, i.e. mine, is that they have been ripping off customers for so long they now depend on it so heavily that they must continue to keep doing so to be able to stay in
business.

The Digital Britain Report - Just one recent thing about that. The House of Lords say that those found guilty of filesharing copyrighted material by the media companies should have a right to appeal. (It still sounds odd that it's not ...

Opinion piece,

I am writing this to answer a question that has been raised on our forums and I would like to answer it publicly as there can be no doubt about what our goals and aims are and, more importantly in this case, aren't. 

Now, while the ideal of allowing all images to be legal may seem appealing in an idealistic sense, there has to be some use of moral sense. The Obscene Publications Act should not be hamstrung by introducing a contradictory and obviously flawed law.  A seemingly innocuous statement like "possession of images of any kind should not be illegal" implies that  we also want to legalise obscene images.  Not the easiest claim to refute if we go down that road.

Do we really need to load the cannon to be used against us? Or should we show the voters that the Pirates are responsible citizens able to use their judgement in a way that other political parties can't or wont.

How many times has a law been brought in only to produce unforeen side effects that allow a very small minority to abuse loopholes for their own gains or perverted pleasure.  The strict adherence to not censoring books in the UK allows perverted stories to be published about illegal acts,  and I for one don't understand why this is allowed to continue, let alone allowing the same to happen with images.  It's not censorship, it's exercising good moral judgement on behalf of the voters who will elect us, something that is sadly lacking in Westminster currently.

An accusation of  following public opinion would be welcomed by this writer, as I have never understood why such an accusation is not a compliment in a democratic society and shows more substance than people who firmly cling to their ideas while their ship slips slowly under the waves of ridicule. That's not having principles and sticking to them, that's plain stupid. The public vote, so they are who we answer to. 

So, Lord Mandelson comes back from his holiday and decides to pay for it by quickly adding a bit to the Queens Speech that will allow his mates to increase their vast fortunes. http://torrentfreak.com/britain-mulls-turning-7-million-into-download-criminals-090816/ 

Lets forget the fact that this should all be debated in the Digital Britain debate in parliament later this year and look at what positives might come from this.

Since nobody in power is willing to define exactly how evidence will be gathered I have to say that it would be of great help if the government would criminalise the offence and then the evidence would have to be gathered in a proper manner against each individual.  This is important because the media industry would like to be able to circumvent the judicial process completely and use the flimsiest evidence obtained by "sub contractors" (IP harvesters) as proof and force ISP's to act on it, hence saving themselves from the problem of having to individually prosecute their own best customers in a civil case or using the police to investigate a crime.

The burden of proof in a criminal case would have to be beyond reasonable doubt instead of the balance of probability required for a civil case, so while an IP address could be accepted by a technologically unaware judge as proof of guilt in a civil case, there would have to be a proper trail of evidence gathered by the police through obtaining a warrant to monitor an individuals internet use if there is a valid reason for suspecting a crime is being committed.

I am a bit cynical perhaps, but I'm sure the government will find a method of justifying not using the courts to decide guilt on this particular crime. Can you imagine the outcry if a terrorist suspect was convicted on evidence obtained by a commercial company using highly intrusive and undisclosed spying methods, the suspect would walk free because the evidence was inadmissible and would have a nice big wad of cash to compensate him or her for such a huge breach of his human rights. Maybe it's because there aren't large sums of money to be made from going after terrorists that our ignoble leaders haven't found a way to bypass the individual right to trial that seems to apply to all but filesharers.

Just a quick message for all our new members, whilst we are very grateful for all the suggestions about different policies that we should adopt, the Pirate Party U.K. intends to remain on topic and concentrate on our three core beliefs;

1. The reform of Copyright and Patent Laws

2. The protection of our Right to Privacy

3. The protection of our Right to Freedom of Speech

Whilst the forum is a great place to debate and exchange ideas amongst members, the PPUK will remain neutral on all other issues.  

We are trying to let people know that we do have something serious to say about our core policies and using the worldwide Pirate movement to raise awareness through a combination of catchy name and serious, coherent arguments is why the Party has attracted so much success in Sweden and Germany so far. We are the only worldwide Party that has such a hugely recognizable image and the ability, through our technologically aware membership, to get the messages across all borders. The Pirate Bay got very little credit in the media for helping the protestors in Iran to tell the world what was happening, but they weren't out for medals, they just did it because it was the right thing to do, in the same way that I know that the Pirate Party are doing what needs to be done.