So if I were to suggest that someone should protest this one inside the 1 mile parlimentary exclusion zone without permission, The Reg would probably get a letter pretty soon?

When I read the first paragraph of the article, I thought that the UK had decided to follow the US model and prosecute anybody they wanted, no matter where they are located. And then you disappointed me. You mean I can set up a site advocating bombing the Parliment and only have to worry about the Feds? Shucks, I was hoping to serve life in two countries.

"If, for example, a blog posting is deemed a threat to public security and a police constable asked the EEA member state to effect its removal and that state failed to do so, proceedings in the UK will be possible."

So a police constable gains the arbitrary power to remove a comment he deems a threat to public security without any checks on that power?

And any police constable can do it, if 5000 constables think the comment is ok and 1 thinks its bad, that 1 constable can remove a comment?

With the penalties so huge (Imprisonment!) and the cost of defence in another country so high that no bulletin board would ever take the chance to challenge the constables request?

Worse still, to travel to the UK to object to the request would expose you to a control order risk as a terrorist suspect? This illegal restriction power introduced by Blair?

"Article 11

Freedom of expression and information.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected."

You can't have freedom of expression if ONE police constable WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, can silence your freedom to speak. You may be expressing the majority view, but a single minority police constable can apply an arbitrary power that would silence the MAJORITY view by his actions.

In no sense is this acceptable.

Different from fellow reader Dillon Pyron, when starting to read the article, I thought that the UK had decided to pretend to reside on a continent different than Europe (Atlantis, or any reader suggestions?)

Is this an example of total totalitarianism? (excuse the long word).

How do we find out about the posting being unacceptable?

Are we to be told when and if we have in some way digressed?

What are the teaching rules when, instead of a detailed act of Parliament, we have to refer back to a single person that cannot, ever, be able to interpret the law in the widest sense.

Does the interest of the USA, or Israel become paramount when a decision is made, regardless if the interests of free speech here in the UK?

How do we defend free speech, when now we cannot speak for fear of unknowingly being taken off a web site for making a comment we believe is true?

I think the next election should be an expression of the need for change and any party that wishes to win should argue for a change to this law. It represents a total rejection of the whole idea of free speech.

The most fundamental foundation stone of the law is a matter of a right to due process. I have the absolute right to be tried before a court of law and twelve good and true citizens. That in turn gives me the right to question my accuser. Thus in any aspect of the process of the law, I am able to know who my accuser is, to question them and know exactly what my crime is.

This change in the law removes due process. How does it get into statute?

Will someone that has the resources available pleae research this and tell us the answers to my questions.

Or is it that in fact, no one in LAW cares anymore about the fundamental rights of a citizen?

Just how low have we dropped?