The UK Government, in all it's (cough) wisdom, has published a draft outlining browser standards that public service sites must adhere to should it be ratified. All seems well and good, until reading the proposal which states that browsers with a market share of less than 2% need not be officially supported.
Users of the most common internet browsers can sleep soundly. Internet Explorer and Firefox both command a market share significantly higher than the 2% cutoff. One might suspect that only the most obscure browsers on the planet would fall below that mark. Unfortunately one well known browser does so too - Opera. But let's not forget those lesser used browsers - Konqueror, Epiphany, IceWeasel, Dillo, Lynx and the newest browser to venture on to the scene; Google's Chrome browser.
The proposal states that this new policy is required due to the amount of time spent testing a site on each individual browser to ensure compatibility. However, rather than resorting to alienating minority browsers would it not be easier and better to simply code websites to existing standards? Is that not what they are there for?
It's well known that many browsers do have their own little idiosyncrasies and coding for these can make a site not function correctly in other browsers. Coding to standards though can ensure, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that content will be as it was intended across the range of different browsers and operating systems.
Of course, testing a site on every single browser out there is impractical, but by ensuring standards compliance minority browser users should not be left out in the cold. This is public service we're talking about after all. All of the public must be able to interact with it.
On doing checks on English County Council websites using the W3C HTML validator, the sites acheived the following results:
- Bedfordshire<br>www.bedfordshire.gov.uk (passed, 10 warnings)
- Berkshire<br>www.westberks.gov.uk (11 errors)
- Buckinghamshire<br>www.buckscc.gov.uk (9 errors, 10 warnings)
- Cambridgeshire<br>www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk (22 errors, 68 warnings)
- Cheshire<br>www.cheshire.gov.uk (passed, 0 warnings)
- Cornwall<br>www.cornwall.gov.uk (6 errors, 4 warnings)
- Cumbria<br>www.cumbria.gov.uk (1 error, 1 warning)
- Derbyshire<br>www.derbyshire.gov.uk (8 errors, 8 warnings)
- Devon<br>www.devon.gov.uk (6 errors, 4 warnings)
- Dorset<br>www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk (passed, 0 warnings)
- Durham<br>www.durham.gov.uk (passed, 18 warnings)
- Essex<br>www.essex.gov.uk (14 errors, 7 warnings)
- Gloucestershire<br>www.gloucestershire.gov.uk (2 errors, 23 warnings)
- Hampshire<br>www.hampshire.gov.uk (passed, 1 warning)
- Herefordshire<br>www.herefordshire.gov.uk (22 errors, 68 warnings)
- Hertfordshire<br>www.hertsdirect.org (passed, 0 errors)
- Kent<br>www.kent.gov.uk (unavailable at the time)
- Lancashire<br>www.lancashire.gov.uk (passed, 0 errors)
- Leicestershire<br>www.leicestershire.gov.uk (1 error, 1 warning)
- Lincolnshire<br>www.lincolnshire.gov.uk (15 errors, 0 warnings)
- Norfolk<br>www.norfolk.gov.uk (15 errors)
- Northamptonshire<br>www.northamptonshire.gov.uk (49 errors, 11 warnings)
- Northumberland<br>www.northumberland.gov.uk (5 errors)
- Nottinghamshire<br>www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk (1 error, 7 warnings)
- Oxfordshire<br>www.oxfordshire.gov.uk (6 errors, 39 warnings)
- Rutland<br>www.rutland.gov.uk (15 errors)
- Shropshire<br>www.shropshire.gov.uk (1 error, 14 warnings)
- Somerset<br>www.somerset.gov.uk (1 error, 1 warning)
- Staffordshire<br>www.staffordshire.gov.uk (passed, 9 warnings)
- Suffolk<br>www.suffolk.gov.uk (1 error, 1 warning)
- Surrey<br>www.surrey.gov.uk (passed, 2 warnings)
- Sussex (East)<br>www.eastsussex.gov.uk (2 errors)
- Sussex (West)<br>www.westsussex.gov.uk (passed, 0 errors)
- Warwickshire<br>www.warwickshire.gov.uk (134 errors, 89 warnings)
- Wiltshire<br>www.wiltshire.gov.uk (10 errors)
- Worcestershire<br>www.worcestershire.gov.uk (passed)
- North Yorkshire<br>www.northyorks.gov.uk (14 errors)
In summary:
- Valid: 5
- Valid with warnings: 7
- Invalid: 25
Although a few council's have got it right and have compliant sites (well home pages at least), most have problems. Warwickshire stands out with 134 errors, but so do council's such as Cumbria, Leicestershire, Somerset and Suffolk with only 1 error each which on the surface one would think would be easy to fix.
I was quite disappointed (but not surprised) to learn that Labour succeeded in a vote for a maximum of 42 days detention without charge.
Fortunately, 36 Labour MP's saw reason and decided to rebel against the Government in an attempt to block the legislation that allows a terror suspect to be held for 6 weeks in exceptional circumstances. Unfortunately it wasn't quite enough. The bill passed with 315 votes to 306 - a difference of only 9.
I'm hoping this legislation is shot down in the House of Lords. I don't see any logic behind it. So far, there has been no incident where a suspect has had to be released due to a lack of evidence being obtained within the current limit of 28 days.
They say it's a step that needs to be taken for the future, but then why 42 days? If this legislation does become law, what would happen if the authorities suddenly decided they need 43 days? Will another bill be put before Parliament for 90 days (again)? Then what if 91 days is needed? Where does it stop?
One of the so-called concessions that has been made with this bill, is that Parliament will be able to vote on whether the conditions are right (i.e. there is a significant threat) in order to allow the extended detention period. Critics are arguing (and this is a point made in The Daily Politics today) that any debate in Parliament could prejudice a trial. Even if an individuals case is not explicitly discussed (which it can't be), discussion around whether there is exceptional circumstances and a significant threat could be linked to reports in the press around a specific suspect. Any future trial could then be prejudiced.
I try not to be much of a cynic (although it's hard sometimes); but more than anything else they say this bill is to do with, this looks to me like an attempt by Gordon Brown to get through the detention period that Tony Blair couldn't.
When the former Prime Minister was in power, a bill was put forward to allow detention without trial for 90 days. That didn't go through and instead we ended up with the 28 day maximum period which we have now. Here we see Mr Brown attempt to up that limit to 42 days. If that goes through, will he make a second attempt at 90 days - the limit that was originally voted out?
Fortunately, 36 Labour MP's saw reason and decided to rebel against the Government in an attempt to block the legislation that allows a terror suspect to be held for 6 weeks in exceptional circumstances. Unfortunately it wasn't quite enough. The bill passed with 315 votes to 306 - a difference of only 9.
I'm hoping this legislation is shot down in the House of Lords. I don't see any logic behind it. So far, there has been no incident where a suspect has had to be released due to a lack of evidence being obtained within the current limit of 28 days.
They say it's a step that needs to be taken for the future, but then why 42 days? If this legislation does become law, what would happen if the authorities suddenly decided they need 43 days? Will another bill be put before Parliament for 90 days (again)? Then what if 91 days is needed? Where does it stop?
One of the so-called concessions that has been made with this bill, is that Parliament will be able to vote on whether the conditions are right (i.e. there is a significant threat) in order to allow the extended detention period. Critics are arguing (and this is a point made in The Daily Politics today) that any debate in Parliament could prejudice a trial. Even if an individuals case is not explicitly discussed (which it can't be), discussion around whether there is exceptional circumstances and a significant threat could be linked to reports in the press around a specific suspect. Any future trial could then be prejudiced.
I try not to be much of a cynic (although it's hard sometimes); but more than anything else they say this bill is to do with, this looks to me like an attempt by Gordon Brown to get through the detention period that Tony Blair couldn't.
When the former Prime Minister was in power, a bill was put forward to allow detention without trial for 90 days. That didn't go through and instead we ended up with the 28 day maximum period which we have now. Here we see Mr Brown attempt to up that limit to 42 days. If that goes through, will he make a second attempt at 90 days - the limit that was originally voted out?
A rather disturbing article appeared on the Guardian website yesterday regarding a youth who has been summoned to appear at court for the use of the word 'cult' on a demonstration placard.
According to the news article (linked) the placard was used by the said teenager as part of a peaceful demonstration against the Church of Scientology and read 'Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult'. The police quoted Section 5 of the Public Order Act which prohibits words that are threatening, abusive or insulting being used on signs.
The word cult has a perfectly valid definition that can factually apply to the Church of Scientology. A dictionary definition of the word is "a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.". Unless I'm mistaken, members of the Church would be bound together by the ideals of scientology.
So now, in this free nation we call Britain, we have people facing prosecution for using harmless words in peaceful demonstrations. It looks to me like this nation just got a little less free.
To be fair, it's only the City of London Police who seem to be overly heavy handed in their interpretation of the law. The Metropolitan Police don't appear to have any issue with the word. There is also some issue with the Guardian's article or the reports that fed into it as summons are not issued on the street by police officers. More likely is that the officer has reported this alleged 'offence' and the youth is waiting to here of any possibly court action.
It's a slippery slope though. If this teenager does get prosecuted, that could set a dangerous precedent for future protests and demonstrations. The right to protest freely is a staple part of our right to freedom of speech. If that right becomes eroded, we are all in a very bad situation.
Now repeat after me:
Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult
Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult
Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult
Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult
Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult
(repeat ad nauseum)
According to the news article (linked) the placard was used by the said teenager as part of a peaceful demonstration against the Church of Scientology and read 'Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult'. The police quoted Section 5 of the Public Order Act which prohibits words that are threatening, abusive or insulting being used on signs.
The word cult has a perfectly valid definition that can factually apply to the Church of Scientology. A dictionary definition of the word is "a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.". Unless I'm mistaken, members of the Church would be bound together by the ideals of scientology.
So now, in this free nation we call Britain, we have people facing prosecution for using harmless words in peaceful demonstrations. It looks to me like this nation just got a little less free.
To be fair, it's only the City of London Police who seem to be overly heavy handed in their interpretation of the law. The Metropolitan Police don't appear to have any issue with the word. There is also some issue with the Guardian's article or the reports that fed into it as summons are not issued on the street by police officers. More likely is that the officer has reported this alleged 'offence' and the youth is waiting to here of any possibly court action.
It's a slippery slope though. If this teenager does get prosecuted, that could set a dangerous precedent for future protests and demonstrations. The right to protest freely is a staple part of our right to freedom of speech. If that right becomes eroded, we are all in a very bad situation.
Now repeat after me:
Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult
Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult
Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult
Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult
Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult
(repeat ad nauseum)
The government has announced plans to force UK ISPs to curb illegal downloading and may even impose internet bans on such users. Although I have no problem with illegal downloaders being punished, I do have concerns about these plans.
It's well known that there is a piracy problem on the internet. BBC News reports that 6 million people in the UK download media illegally, and the music industry claim that copyright theft is what is causing their decline. Regardless of my opinions about the music industry, I do agree that people downloading copyrighted media does cause damage to these types of industries. Artists should be paid for their work.
However, my concern with the governments proposals is simple. Privacy. I wonder how ISPs will know whether someone is illegally downloading material or not? They cannot simple say that a download from a torrent or newsgroup is illegal. That would kill off a genuine method of legitimate file sharing such as sharing own works or GPL licensed software. They cannot say downloads of MP3 music is illegal - that would impact on genuine music retailers such as 7digital or eMusic. They could have a list of websites offering content for illegal download, but what if a site is miscategorised? Let's say a genuine online music download retailer is miscategorised. Are all it's customers going to be branded criminals?
I don't see this as being very workable. The only thing I can see being done is ISPs actually looking at individual downloads. That would have to be by spot checks due to the vast number of downloads being made. This is where my privacy concerns come in. ISPs would need to see genuine downloads as well as the illegal downloads. I don't want them nosing at my perfectly legal downloads thank you very much.
Besides, wouldn't content just end up being encrypted so that only the source and end user will know what it is with the ISP being none the wiser? Or are encrypted downloads going to be banned now as well? Speculation, I know. But a valid point I think.
It's well known that there is a piracy problem on the internet. BBC News reports that 6 million people in the UK download media illegally, and the music industry claim that copyright theft is what is causing their decline. Regardless of my opinions about the music industry, I do agree that people downloading copyrighted media does cause damage to these types of industries. Artists should be paid for their work.
However, my concern with the governments proposals is simple. Privacy. I wonder how ISPs will know whether someone is illegally downloading material or not? They cannot simple say that a download from a torrent or newsgroup is illegal. That would kill off a genuine method of legitimate file sharing such as sharing own works or GPL licensed software. They cannot say downloads of MP3 music is illegal - that would impact on genuine music retailers such as 7digital or eMusic. They could have a list of websites offering content for illegal download, but what if a site is miscategorised? Let's say a genuine online music download retailer is miscategorised. Are all it's customers going to be branded criminals?
I don't see this as being very workable. The only thing I can see being done is ISPs actually looking at individual downloads. That would have to be by spot checks due to the vast number of downloads being made. This is where my privacy concerns come in. ISPs would need to see genuine downloads as well as the illegal downloads. I don't want them nosing at my perfectly legal downloads thank you very much.
Besides, wouldn't content just end up being encrypted so that only the source and end user will know what it is with the ISP being none the wiser? Or are encrypted downloads going to be banned now as well? Speculation, I know. But a valid point I think.
As Tony Blair departs from the office of Prime Minister, and Gordon Brown takes up the reigns of power; Britain today entered a new era, albeit still a Labour one.
It's been a long time coming - Seven weeks in fact since Tony Blair announce the date that he would step down from office; even longer ago that he announce he would step down at around this time - but it's still quite an event. I'm not a Labour supporter but it was quite sad to see an undoubtedly skillful leader leave office after 10 years. Although Tony Blair was the third Prime Minister of my lifetime, he was the first from when I became interested in politics back in 1998.
I can recall only a couple of years into the Labour government, that I didn't particularly like the way things were run. Of course, not having followed politics during the Major or Thatcher years, I couldn't really compare to the previous governments, but the first things I recall thinking against this government was that the NHS didn't appear to be improving from the news I was hearing, that the petrol crisis was bad and that the handling of the foot and mouth outbreak was poor to say the least.
Since then, contrary to what figures state, crime appears to be bad with frequent stabbings in our cities and anti-social behaviour putting fear into the streets; the NHS has had money ploughed into it, but with disproportionate results; and dare I mention the fiasco that is Iraq.
Credit where credit's due though. Our economy has been stable although interest rates are creeping up now, and inflation was higher than targets. The Northern Ireland Peace Process has been a definate plus point as well.
Now reading back on this, it does sound like I'm simply repeating what has been said on news programmes and articles all across the media, but I do want to highlight the fact that although I wasn't particularly keen on his politics, I do acknowledge that Tony Blair has done some good things for this country. It's just a shame that the promise "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" didn't really amount to anything, and he misled the nation over the war in Iraq. I don't think the endless "spin" was particularly good. Nor was the introduction of many new unnecessary laws, when all that may have been needed was the cutting of bureaucracy to ensure law enforcement officials could do their jobs.
In his speech, when arriving at Number 10 for the first time as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown has promised change. He appeared to make a clean break from the Blair era by stating that his will be a new Government with new priorities. What these changes and new priorities shall be remains to be seen. I do hope though that this really will be a new Governement, and not just a continuation of Blair's Britain under Gordon's name.
It's been a long time coming - Seven weeks in fact since Tony Blair announce the date that he would step down from office; even longer ago that he announce he would step down at around this time - but it's still quite an event. I'm not a Labour supporter but it was quite sad to see an undoubtedly skillful leader leave office after 10 years. Although Tony Blair was the third Prime Minister of my lifetime, he was the first from when I became interested in politics back in 1998.
I can recall only a couple of years into the Labour government, that I didn't particularly like the way things were run. Of course, not having followed politics during the Major or Thatcher years, I couldn't really compare to the previous governments, but the first things I recall thinking against this government was that the NHS didn't appear to be improving from the news I was hearing, that the petrol crisis was bad and that the handling of the foot and mouth outbreak was poor to say the least.
Since then, contrary to what figures state, crime appears to be bad with frequent stabbings in our cities and anti-social behaviour putting fear into the streets; the NHS has had money ploughed into it, but with disproportionate results; and dare I mention the fiasco that is Iraq.
Credit where credit's due though. Our economy has been stable although interest rates are creeping up now, and inflation was higher than targets. The Northern Ireland Peace Process has been a definate plus point as well.
Now reading back on this, it does sound like I'm simply repeating what has been said on news programmes and articles all across the media, but I do want to highlight the fact that although I wasn't particularly keen on his politics, I do acknowledge that Tony Blair has done some good things for this country. It's just a shame that the promise "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" didn't really amount to anything, and he misled the nation over the war in Iraq. I don't think the endless "spin" was particularly good. Nor was the introduction of many new unnecessary laws, when all that may have been needed was the cutting of bureaucracy to ensure law enforcement officials could do their jobs.
In his speech, when arriving at Number 10 for the first time as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown has promised change. He appeared to make a clean break from the Blair era by stating that his will be a new Government with new priorities. What these changes and new priorities shall be remains to be seen. I do hope though that this really will be a new Governement, and not just a continuation of Blair's Britain under Gordon's name.