Home > Uncategorized > Private Eye can Arkell v. Pressdram over #TalkNotTech

Private Eye can Arkell v. Pressdram over #TalkNotTech

September 29, 2013

Featured on Liberal Democrat VoicePrivate Eye has lamely tried to imply that Lib Dem policy supports paedophilia by linking Conference’s decision to refer back motion F17, to the investigation into Sir Cyril Smith. The piece on P5 of Eye 1349 begins:

Last Sunday, as the Lib Dem conference voted against toughening up controls to protect children from online pornography, little thought was given to the party’s own record on protecting childhood innocence

This is pretty sloppy reporting from Private Eye, an organ which generally does a good and diligent job. F17 was not voted down, it was referred back for further discussion. It was referred back because it did little to protect children from online pornography and had some major side-effects and drawbacks. I am writing the following response to the Eye‘s editor:

Dear Sir,

You recently claimed that the Lib Dem conference had voted against toughening up controls to protect children from online pornography. This is untrue. The policy motion was not voted down; it was referred back for redrafting as it was not fit for purpose. The motion presented to conference introduced the kind of web filtering and snooping the Eye has opposed on many occasions, would do little to protect children, and would deny them access to educational resources.

The Lib Dems who spoke in the debate, including many technology experts and young people, made a clear case for educating children about healthy relationships and good sex education to protect them against the unrealistic expectations set by pornography far better than web censorship can. This became Lib Dem policy in a later conference motion.

Not only was your reporting factually inaccurate, the attempt to conflate this conference debate with paedophilia was cheap and crass. Please return to your usual high standard so I can encourage you to keep up the good work.

As one of the people who campaigned for a reference back on F17, including sacrificing my Friday night to designing flyers for Liberal Youth and LGBT+ Lib Dems to distribute, and organising an all-member mailing for Plus to vote to refer the motion back, I am particularly annoyed by this sloppy reporting and shameful attempt to correlate genuine concern for childrens’ welfare with child abuse. Teaching our children about healthy relationships, rather than pretending we can solve this problem with web filtering, will protect them from abusers.

We do need to continue the #TalkNotTech conversation; it’s something I’ve been thinking about particularly since this F17 debate, and I suspect we may want to pursue a wide-ranging liberal policy on relationships, respect and consent which I’m nominally naming “Destroy the Heteronormative Patriarchy”.

There are many people interested in getting this right, from the anti-F17 agitators James Shaddock and Alisdair Calder McGregor, through excellent speakers including Jezz Palmer and Sophie Bridger, super-blogger Caron Lindsay and many, many others. LGBT+ Lib Dems and Liberal Youth are interested, and I’m hoping this is something Lib Dem Women will want to contribute to as well. Hopefully by Spring Conference 2014 we’ll have a motion we can put to the Conference floor which is truly radical, concentrating on the root causes of sexism, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, rape culture etc. without being too unwieldy to ever implement.

In the meantime, get writing to Lord Gnome!

UPDATE: Sadly, the Eye‘s response leaves a lot to be desired:

Thank you for your letter, however we stand by the fact that conference did actually vote against motion F17 (and rightly so). A “reference back” is a rejection of the motion, even if, as mentioned elsewhere in coverage of the vote, it’s a polite lib dem way of doing so. Nick Clegg even acknowledged as much in his joke about the Syria vote.

It’s a shame you choose to nit-pick over conference semantics rather than acknowledging that the party’s handling of the Cyril Smith situation and failure to apologise to his victims.

The Eye‘s assertion ignores party procedure, the terms of the reference back, and the speeches given by members in the debate, which clearly demonstrate that the party is very keen on finding a good way to protect children from any potential harm from exposure to porn – and indeed the fact that the party voted for more comprehensive sex and relationship advice for children later in the very same Conference. The motion as presented did not protect children from harm and may have caused worse harm in other ways.

The Cyril Smith “situation” is indeed very serious and worrying. It deserves better treatment from the Eye than being juxtaposed with tawdry and baseless assertions that the party is opposed to the protection of children. Better education for our children about the risks they face, and healthy and appropriate relationships, will help protect them from abuse from adults, whether or not they’re Liberal MPs.

  1. Holly
    September 30, 2013 at 7:43 pm

    Best policy name ever 🙂

  2. just passing
    October 1, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    “You recently claimed that the Lib Dem conference had voted against toughening up controls to protect children from online pornography. This is untrue. The policy motion was not voted down; it was referred back for redrafting as it was not fit for purpose.”

    Isn’t your argument here somewhat undermined by the report that when Cameron lost the vote on (illegal, premature) action in Syria, Nick Clegg told him not to worry as it had just been referred back?

    (Also, I came here from Jennie Rigg’s blog. I think the article I read immediately before this one may have some relevance here: http://robinince.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/so-i-thought-they-said-dog-bites-man-wasnt-a-story/ )

    • October 1, 2013 at 7:27 pm

      I don’t know what Clegg’s comment has to do with Lib Dem conference Standing Orders; the Private Eye article seeks to imply that the Lib Dems don’t care about child protection, when it’s very clear from the terms of the reference back, and the speeches in its favour, that the party cares very deeply about it and seeks an effective solution rather than a technical sticking plaster.

      • just passing
        October 2, 2013 at 12:38 am

        I don’t know whether you misunderstood me because I expressed myself poorly (although for the life of me I can’t see how I could have done so differently) or because it suited your agenda. But since I cannot remedy the former and it’s uncharitable to assume the latter, all I can say is that we cannot effectively communicate.

        Sorry to have – well, clearly I didn’t trouble you at all, so sorry to have caused you to expend less effort than I did.

  1. October 1, 2013 at 10:02 pm
  2. October 6, 2013 at 7:01 pm
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: