Porn did not begin with the internet. I remember the breathless excitement among some of my classmates in school when a top-shelf magazine was smuggled in. Ladies! With no clothes on! It was less exciting for me, as there were already early indications that my interests lay… elsewhere. Nevertheless, the explosion (bad choice of words) in sexual content online means that it is more easily accessible than it ever was before.

Now, the Mail has had enough. It wants internet providers to BAN THIS SICK FILTH, by blocking internet pornography. At the moment some ISPs will block sexually explicit web sites, but most will only do so if the customer specifically requests it, the “opt-out” system. The Mail wants it the other way round – porn blocked by default with the user having to specifically opt-in to be able to view it. Despite warnings from experts that the plan is unworkable, the Government has taken up the idea and is due to launch a consultation.

I think a default block is a bad idea. I will explain why, but first of all I will categorically state that no, of course children shouldn’t be viewing porn. I will also state that adults, on the other hand, should have the right to view whatever adult material they like, provided it is legal activity between consenting adults. For me, porn stopped being interesting around the time I started having actual sex. Eastern European men who are dead behind the eyes don’t really do it for me, but if you want to watch it in your hour of loneliness, there will be no judgement from me.

Technology exists to block web sites, as demonstrated by the recent blocking of the Pirate Bay site. However, enterprising computer users can find their way around the Pirate Bay block in minutes – it doesn’t require any technical expertise beyond an ability to use a search engine to find a “how-to” guide. The same would apply with a porn filter; it would do little to protect teens: in fact, it would be worse than the current status quo, as it would give parents a false sense of security.

The “opt-in” nature of the proposed system means that effectively, ISP customers will have to phone up to ask permission to do something which is perfectly legal. It’s not hard to imagine that a certain stigma will be attached to this. Curtain-twitching busybodies across the nation will have a field day — “You know Mr Bloggs from no. 53? I hear he ‘opted in’!”

My main objection, however, is that it places ISPs in the position of moral guardian, and because the ISPs will be worried about accidentally letting an adult site through the net, they will err on the side of caution and block much more than necessary. We’ve had a taste of this already, through the filters which some mobile phone providers apply to their internet service. O2′s web filtering, for example, has in the past mistakenly blocked the web sites of a Sheffield church and a peace advocacy group.

Also, who will decide which web sites to ban? You could argue that it is obvious what constitutes porn (“I know it when I see it”) but what about sites which contain material which is non-pornographic but still “adults-only” — for example, Viz or b3ta? Should Paddy Power’s web site be blocked to prevent under-age gambling? Dad won’t be happy if he wants a quick punt on the 3.15 at Chepstow. Should a 15-year-old be allowed to access a safe-sex advice web site? Some parents would say yes, others would say no – to block or not to block? This sort of decision should not be the ISP’s decision to make – and nor should it be the Government’s, unless we want to have levels of internet censorship similar to those found in China.

Indeed, one could argue that the Daily Mail web site, relying as it does on titillating photos of scantily-clad celebrities, is inappropriate for children to view. Block it! BLOCK IT NOW!

I am also uneasy that, once the filter is in place, it could start being used against other sites. Could Wikileaks, UK Uncut or similar government-embarrassing websites suddenly find themselves classed as adults-only?

In summary, then: children viewing porn should not be allowed, but the best solution is for parents to acquire a basic amount of technical know-how and install filtering software on their PC. There are plenty available, including a free one from Microsoft which will be bundled with Windows 8 and can be downloaded for Vista/7. Like an ISP-level filter, it is not a complete solution. In fact, the best solution would probably be to TAKE AN INTEREST IN WHAT YOUR CHILDREN ARE DOING. Don’t shut them up in their bedroom with a laptop and leave them to it, instead get involved and supervise them. Maybe even have some of that quality time that the Daily Mail is always talking about.

This was big news in the States. The ABC network, which conducted the interview, went to extreme lengths to safeguard their exclusive, and then interrupted their normal schedule to carry the newsflash.

It’s a largely symbolic announcement: the issue of who can or cannot get married is largely decided by the individual states, and an intervention by the federal government would be difficult for many different reasons. Even so, for Obama to make a statement now is a brave move. Few issues arouse more passion than LGBT rights, and same-sex marriage in particular is guaranteed to get people riled up. The numbers are moving in the right direction, though: Gallup’s figures show that 50% of Americans support same-sex marriage – down slightly from 53% last year, but a significant increase from the 27% who were in favour the first time the question was asked in 1996. That is a massive shift in just 16 years.

Just before Obama’s announcement, the Guardian crunched some numbers and concluded that the President’s re-election campaign has nothing to fear from his announcement. That’s not a view shared by other pundits, but whatever the numbers say, there’s little doubt that Obama is on the right side of history. As gay people leave the closet behind forever to live openly and proudly in society, the question of equal marriage rights is a matter of “when”, not “if”.

The endorsement of the most powerful man on earth is also a welcome boost to the gay rights issue elsewhere in the world. The timing is very apt for us in the UK, where reports are circulating that the coalition government’s same-sex marriage plans are in turmoil and could be postponed. I have some more thoughts on the pro-marriage campaign here in the UK, but I will save them for a future post. In the meantime, you might want to check out the new campaign (Out4Marriage) which has been set up to complement the existing C4EM petition.

It’s a story from the US, where gay rights can be patchy, depending on which state you’re in. As Shane says: in the eyes of the law, he and Tom were no more than roommates. In many countries the situation is much worse – in many parts of the world there are no legal protections for gay people at all.

In Britain it’s important to remember how fortunate we are to have a full raft of gay rights legislation, especially civil partnerships, which confer most (but not all) of the protections and rights of marriage. We should not settle for second best, however, and as certain factions wage a bitter war against full marriage rights, stories like the one above should be foremost in our minds.

Marriage is a right and a privilege – it must be opened up to all couples, regardless of gender. And even when that battle has been won, there is still a mammoth task of stamping out ugly prejudice like that described in the video above.

The campaign has been a fairly rum affair. One candidate pulled out the day after announcing his intention to stand, citing “dirty politics”. Two candidates have been arrested. One lives in Wrexham and is only eligible to stand thanks to a shed he rents in Wavertree. A showpiece mayoral debate at the University of Liverpool was cancelled because of fears that trouble would flare between rival sets of protesters outside the hall. Another debate became farcical after one of the candidates was thrown out.

With all that in mind, it’s hard not to sympathise with independent candidate Liam Fogarty when he calls for an end to “politics, Liverpool-style”.

The campaigning has been complicated by the fact that voters don’t seem to know what the new mayor will actually do. Fogarty, interviewed by Sevenstreets, said that the people on the street are expecting an “ambassador” for the city. That is one aspect of the job, but there is much more to it than that. He (and it will be a he, as shamefully none of the parties could find a female candidate) will have sweeping powers over a number of aspects of city life, with powers being devolved from central Government to the mayor’s office.

What powers the mayor will actually get, however, is not entirely clear. Liverpool City Council’s web site is vague on the topic. Polly Curtis, writing on the Guardian web site, points out that the Government has suggested that the powers will be “tailor made” for each area, and that it is for the mayors themselves to make the case for devolved powers. Cities minister Greg Clark told the Echo, “it will help propel the city’s economy and attract international investment.”

One thing Liverpool will definitely get is a new £130m investment package. According to Liverpool City Council, having an elected mayor was a requirement to obtain this funding. In other words, we were bribed/blackmailed (choose whichever one of those loaded terms fits your world view better).

I’m in favour of elected mayors, but this past month of politicking has not been as inspiring as I hoped it would be. At least we can be grateful that it hasn’t turned into a vacuous battle where personalities are prioritised over policies. Surely no great metropolis would stoop to such levels?

I think it’s the hallmark of a good service that you only notice when its not there. Over the nine years that I’ve been using the service, the problems have been rare but disruptive: a strike, a blizzard, a misbehaving sewer and, most significantly, a six week shutdown to work on the tunnel. By and large however, Merseyrail get on with it with quiet efficiency, taking me to work, the shops, days and nights out, or just delivering me to Lime Street to start a longer journey.

It’s fair to say that Merseyrail is almost as essential to me as oxygen or photos of Gareth Bale with no shirt. Now Liverpool Central has closed for six months, I feel like one of my legs has been chopped off – sure, I can still get about, but it’s not as easy as it was. I mean, come on: Moorfields is at least a five minute walk from Liverpool ONE!

At least Central went out in a blaze of glory at the weekend, with more people passing through its doors than it has ever had to cope with at any time in its existence.

In fact, the above picture neatly sums up why the renovation is needed. With its narrow platforms and cramped passageways, Liverpool Central was increasingly unable to cope with the number of people passing through its barriers. The Sea Odyssey weekend was an extreme situation, but even on a more typical weekend the station sometimes struggled to cope with the hordes of shoppers. Meanwhile, comical situations arose in the morning rush hour, when a train from Hunts Cross would often arrive at the same time as one from Ormskirk, creating an almighty scrum as two trainloads of passengers jostled to get onto the escalators.

The photos below were taken on Sunday morning as I headed to Ormskirk for a Friends of the 502 Group shindig. I just missed the Sea Odyssey rush so the station was crowded. On my return journey the station was so busy I refrained from taking many pictures, lest I be accused of getting in the way.

Even on rare quiet days (as seen below one day last Christmas, when engineering work closed much of the Northern Line), it wasn’t the nicest of places to be. Squeaky escalators, brown formica panelling and floors ingrained with four decades of Scouse muck all conspired to make Liverpool Central a grim place to wait for a train. And don’t get me started on the horrible narrow catwalk that wheelchair users had to navigate to reach the lift.

We are promised that all this will be swept away, replaced with a new-look station befitting of a 21st century city. It’s a big upheaval – probably the biggest disruption for local rail passengers since the last time Liverpool Central closed for refurbishment, back in 1975.

How are we coping? Judging by the first day of the new regime – quite well actually. I boarded my train this morning as normal. I was pleased to note that the on board auto-announcer has been updated to correctly omit Central from the list of calling points (it’s the small things that please me). We glided through Liverpool Central, where I wanted to see hundreds of people in high-vis vests beavering away, but realistically the station had only been closed for 8 hours by this point, so all I saw was some metal fencing piled up and marks on the walls where the CBS Outdoor posters have been removed.

My commute has been extended slightly by the need to walk to and from Moorfields, but Merseyrail staff were in abundance at the station to direct disoriented passengers to their destinations. It all seemed to work very smoothly and if it goes like this for the next six months, only perennial moaners (in Liverpool? Surely not?) will have cause to speak up.

At lunchtime today, I explored the area around Central station, including the attached shopping centre, which will remain open throughout the station’s refurb. A big friendly banner declares that the shops are open as usual, while the digital departures board is perhaps a bit more stark in its message (and seems to be in need of an extra text line).

But will Central Shopping Centre still be able to get by without the passing trade from passengers heading to and from the station? Look at the picture below and judge for yourself.

I bought a newspaper from the WHSmith. I don’t normally get it from there but I decided to make a pity purchase. The sole staff member in the shop seemed genuinely surprised to see me. The chain stores will, I’m sure, tough it out until the station reopens, but there are a couple of independent shops which might be in trouble. Merseyrail are helping out by advertising a load of special offers on the Love Liverpool Central web site. I hope it works.

For those who don’t feel up to walking between stations, Merseyrail have organised a shuttle bus linking Moorfields with Lime Street and Central stations for the duration of the closure. This is operated not by any of the local bus companies but by Abellio, who have brought their own buses in from the South East. Merseytravel got a bit too excited in their press release and described these vehicles as “iconic Routemaster Red buses”, which they are plainly not. Note the branding on the side of the bus – the temptation to go for yet another Beatles reference was apparently too much to resist.

The buses seemed quite lightly used when I first saw them, but became a lot more popular when a sudden hailstorm started hurling marble-sized chunks of ice into the streets. Funny that.

Will all these works be worth the wait? I hope so. I feel a very strong sense of ownership with regard to Central. I’ve spent more time loitering there than I care to think about. It will be great to march in there, six months from now, and go, “ooh, isn’t it shiny!”

My cynicism was increased further when Merseytravel published a list of bus diversions which ran to 12 pages, but could have been succinctly summarised as, “if you use a bus, you’re in trouble”. Was it worth causing this level of disruption to the normal life of the city?

As it turned out, yes it was.

For the uninitiated, The Sea Odyssey is a show based on the story of three giants: a little girl, her dog, and her uncle (a diver) who end up roaming the city in search of each other before finally being reunited. The giants are extremely sophisticated marionettes, animated by a squad of talented French performance artists who operate numerous ropes and pulleys to make the giants move. The show has been developed and designed specifically for Liverpool’s streets, and is a one-time-only event.

What set Sea Odyssey aside was the sheer scale of it. The Guardian previewed the event and noted that “Sea Odyssey will be – the Olympics aside – the largest outdoor event staged in the country this year.”

It started on Friday with events centred around Stanley Park in the north of the city, but I was in work so missed out. I took advantage of my lunch break, however, to stroll down to the Albert Dock, where one of the giants – the Diver Uncle – sat in the water, waiting…

He was due to wake up at 2pm, but I was expected back at the office by then, and to miss even a second at my desk would violate my strong work ethic (stop laughing, you).

On my way back to the office I passed this mysterious geyser which had appeared near to the Liver Building. Periodically it erupted with a gush of water, surprising the unwary (including me – a split second after taking this photo I got soaked as the wind blew the water droplets my way)!

That was all the excitement I had for now. After work, I ventured down to St George’s Hall, where I was joined by my friend Andrew, freshly returned from China. A large crowd had already assembled in anticipation of the little girl giant. People nearby worried about not having a good view, but when you’re here to see a 30 foot giant, I don’t think views will be an issue.

After about 20 minutes of waiting, during which time the excitement reached fever pitch, the appearance of a couple of police outriders heralded the arrival of the giants. First, Xolo the dog, who delighted the audience with his tricks.

And then, the Little Girl giant, all 30 feet of her. A picture can’t possibly reproduce what it’s like to see this live. The ropes and pulleys – and the people operating them – largely fade into the background, and I started to believe that this was a real little girl.

The giants moved on into Queen Square Bus Station. Andrew and I quickly headed for Paradise Street, so we could see them all again!

That was it for Friday, but with my appetite suitably whet, it was a no-brainer to head back into Liverpool on Saturday to see more. After my morning gym session, I didn’t head home straight away and instead went to the Pier Head. There, an entranced crowd were watching the Little Girl Giant and Xolo enjoying a nap.

The attention to detail was marvellous – not only where there realistic snoring sounds, but the Girl’s chest raised and fell, as if she was really breathing.

These two were not due to wake until 4.30pm, so I headed back into the city centre and once again reached St George’s Hall, where the Giant Uncle was due to make an appearance.

The previous night had been busy but the scene on St George’s Plateau on Saturday afternoon was something else entirely. Maybe it was because it was now the weekend, maybe it was because the weather was more clement, maybe it was because word had spread about how good the show was. Whatever the explanation, the area around St George’s Hall and Lime Street Station was packed with people, as families staked their place to ensure they had a good view.

All eyes were firmly fixed on London Road, as the excited crowd eagerly waited for the giant to appear from behind the Empire Theatre. There was a genuine sense that something special was about to happen. And when it did…

Oh my.

The crowd was transfixed by the behemoth in front of them. A raised eyebrow, a tip of the head, some hand gestures – they all combined to make this giant seem… human; like a new friend to the thousands of tiny people watching
in awe from below.

I was extremely jealous of the students in the halls of residence opposite, who had the best seats in the house for the whole thing.

Having safely arrived on Lime Street, the Uncle removed his helmet, sat down, closed his eyes… and slept.

I turned to leave and head home, but this proved to be more difficult than I anticipated. Since my arrival, the crowds had swelled still further, and the whole area around Lime Street was a sea of humanity. It seemed as though all of Liverpool had decided to come into the town for the day and occupy one tiny area. It was a fantastic sight.

At Liverpool Central, the queue to board trains stretched out of the station, through the shopping centre and out into Ranelagh Street. There were a few grumbles, but for the most part people were understanding. I think the transport problems were actually something to celebrate, being a side effect of the event’s popularity bringing in thousands (hundreds of thousands) of extra people into the city to see all that Liverpool has to offer.

I came home and, feeling tired, decided not to head back for the evening’s events. I now regret this decision, as I missed the grand finale at Kings Dock when the Uncle and Little Girl giants finally met. Reports are that when the two giants embraced, there wasn’t a dry eye in the place. We, the people of Liverpool have clearly taken these giant creatures into our hearts.

Hell, I had a tear in my eye, and I wasn’t even there – I just saw a picture on Twitter.

@LivEchonews @Liverpool_ONE @lpoolcouncil @LpoolChamber what a beautiful sight, very emotional, very well done. twitter.com/jackiamills/st…

— Jacki Mills (@jackiamills) April 21, 2012

I want to offer genuine, huge, hearty, knee-slapping, standing ovation-style congratulations to Liverpool City Council and Royal de Luxe for putting on a huge, ambitious event. A few sourpusses will grumble about the amount it cost to stage (an estimated £1.5 million) but personally I could not be prouder.

It has put the city on the map for all the right reasons – check out the coverage in the Guardian, the BBC and the Telegraph, just for starters. It’s also brought in thousands of visitors to set the cash registers ringing in the local shops.

More importantly, the spectacle will have left a lasting impression on everyone who saw it, who will surely talk about it for years to come.

The only question now is: how can the city possibly top this in the future? I don’t know, but I can’t wait to find out!

I’ve been proved right, but I didn’t expect it to get this unpleasant this quickly. I’ve previously mentioned Cardinal O’Brien calling gay relationships “grotesque”. We’ve also had a Kent MP claiming that Shakespeare’s plays will have to be rewritten, and the Daily Mail screaming that terms like “mother” and “father” will be replaced by “progenitor”(?!).

The campaign took a new twist on 3rd April, when gay rights group Stonewall relaunched their “some people are gay, get over it!” ad campaign on the back of the current push for equal(ish) marriage rights. The advert is on 1,000 of the capital’s buses, ensuring that the equality message is brought to every community of London.

A response came today from the misleadingly-titled Anglican Mainstream, a Christian organisation which claims to support “traditional” teaching on the family (and you know what that usually means). They booked a smaller ad campaign on 26 London buses, claiming that sexual orientation can be changed with therapy. The ads, which were due to appear from next week, were a spoof of Stonewall’s design and slogan: “NOT GAY! EX-GAY, POST-GAY, AND PROUD. GET OVER IT!”

Naturally, a lot of people got upset about this, and after a storm of controversy raged on the Internet for most of the day, Transport for London finally responded on their official Twitter earlier this evening.

Anglican Mainstream ad just brought to our attention and will not run on London’s bus or transport networks

— TfL Official (@TfLofficial) April 12, 2012

We don’t believe these ads reflect TfL’s commitment to a tolerant and inclusive London

— TfL Official (@TfLofficial) April 12, 2012

I anticipate there will be howls from certain quarters about censorship and free speech. I’m a strong advocate of freedom of speech in almost all circumstances. However, I believe that TfL’s decision to remove the adverts was absolutely the correct one, for two reasons.

Firstly, the ads are arguably misleading. The campaign cites a study on changing sexual orientation which, as the Guardian reports, is dubious at best. The general opinion of respected psychological organisations the world over is that sexual orientation cannot be changed.

Secondly, the ads could be harmful to people. While the great strides forward over the past decade or so have helped LGBT people to live happier and more fulfilled lives, there are still plenty who suffer prejudice and discrimination; from society, from religion, even their own families. They often experience mental health and other problems as a result.

The solution to that issue, however, is not a promise of a “cure” that won’t work. The American Psychological Association says, “there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation … is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.”

If the anti-marriage equality camp can phrase their argument in a way which doesn’t boil down to “gay people are icky and weird and now we’ll all be marrying hamsters and Jesus SAID SO,” I’ll be happy to listen. Until then, jog on.

PS People have been praising Boris Johnson for intervening personally to make TfL block the ads. While he’s on the right side this time, please bear in mind that back in 2001 he said this:

If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog.

He’s moderated his views slightly since then (when asked about the above comment in an interview for the May 2012 edition of Attitude, he says that the Government’s position on marriage is “credible” and the argument “will rapidly look out of date”) but he still seems a bit dodgy on this subject to me.

PPS you have filled in the Government’s same-sex marriage consultation, haven’t you?

I don’t for a second think that Alan Davies is an offensive person. But get a man to talk about football, and for some reason common sense goes out the window and angry nonsense seems to be the default level of conversation (check out the comments on the YouTube video I linked to, which make normal YouTube comments look like the Frost/Nixon interview).

I kind of get the nation’s obsession with football, but there are lots of things I don’t get. For example, I don’t understand why rivalries get so nasty and personal. I don’t understand why Liverpool and Everton fans are such a volatile mix that police feel it necessary to enforce segregated pubs in London for the FA Cup semi-final on Saturday.

I don’t understand how a stall in Clayton Square Shopping Centre thinks it’s amusing to sell baby-grows that say (paraphrased) “I’ve only just been born but I hate the red shite”.

I blame Sky Sports for hyping up every match they show as being the most important event in the world ever (clip below is a David Mitchell spoof, but scarily close to the real thing).

I don’t understand. Someone explain it to me.

“This is pure politics on their part. This isn’t a priority for the gay community, which already won equal rights with civil partnerships. We’ve never needed the word ‘marriage’, and all it’s done now is get a bunch of bishops hot under the collar. We’ve been pragmatic, not making the mistake they have in the US, where the gay lobby has banged on about marriage.”

One part of what he says is true – I think this is a political move on David Cameron’s part. However, while he’s entitled to his view I wish Bradshaw would have thought a little bit before speaking out and making comments that anti-marriage campaigners would jump all over. Like other prominent gay people who have opposed marriage equality – Christopher Biggins, Brian Sewell et al – he seems to have looked at his own life position, where he’s happy and settled and doesn’t want or need to get married, and concluded from that that no other same-sex couple anywhere could possibly want or need it.

It’s also worth pointing out the civil partnerships do not confer exactly the same rights and responsibilities as marriage – there are several important differences, mostly in the areas of inheritance and pension rights.

Oh, and you have signed the petition and submitted a response to the Government consultation, haven’t you?