‘Elf and safety is a term which attracts much derision on the best of days, but this latest move has forced a mass debate for very different reasons: and it all centres around a small amount of shaped latex.

I am, of course, referring to the decision to require actors and actresses in LA to wear condoms in porn films.

It was, perhaps, a move which was more about image than health and safety – porn stars are already required to undertake regular health checks for STDs – but legislators in LA bowed to a petition which exceeded the threshold requiring a debate.

After all, legal or otherwise, it is an open secret that impressionable under-18s can (and do) access a wealth of material on the Internet, and whilst the stars themselves are already careful to avoid infections and unwanted pregnancies, the visual implication is that no such measures are taken.

However, the new law has not been met with unanmious approval.

Opponents say that it reduces their enjoyment of pornography when condoms are used and question how (without being too vulgar) they can remove them before (ahem) finishing.

Others, though, point out that LA is only a small city compared to the rest of the US and the world – and that porn produced elsewhere can still be condom-free.

At the moment.

Unwanted pregnancies and STDs are (I am led to believe) at alarming rates (though any rate higher than 0 is, to be honest, alarming) and any moves to counter that can only be welcomed.

A concerted effort needs to be made by ISPs and web-restriction software providers (such as Norton) to encourage parents to restrict web access on their children’s computers.

Virgin Mobile currently operate an opt-in policy to adult sites, but also block non-adult sites (including, when I was with them at least) PoliticsHome.

Personally, I believe an opt-out policy from all ISPs and mobile providers would be less draconian (as long as it was smarter with the websites blocked), but allow parents the option to stop their children from accessing adult websites.

There are, of course, software providers who produce content-restricting software, but these carry problems of their own, chiefly that those determined to access pornography are usually tech-savvy enough to disable the parental lock – and so they are only really suitable for younger children.

It is, of course, a complex issue, one to which there are no immediate or entirely satisfactory answers.

However, the decision to reequire the use of condoms in the LA porn industry can, in my opinion, only be a good start in tackling the issue (ahem) head-on.

“Honour violence cuts across cultures, faith groups and nationality with the highest number occurring within South Asian, Middle Eastern and East European communities. While there is some distribution of this violence across Sikh and Hindu groups, incidences where Muslim women are the victim of their fathers, brother or cousins are tragically high. I come from a Muslim background, and I must say there is nothing in Islam to support such horrendous acts of evil. References to the faith of those involved in honour violence incidents may, for some observers, offer a possible explanation or even justification for the act violence. However, I reiterate, there is no justification for such violence and it is important to distinguish between cultural norms and religious belief.

“I remember the shocking case of a Sikh man, Mr Dosanjh, who was jailed for 14 years after being found guilty of plotting to murder his daughter, her Jewish boyfriend and the man he mistook for the lover’s father in a so-called honour killing. The 51-year-old man tried to hire an assassin because he believed his daughter had brought disgrace on his family by moving in with her Jewish boyfriend. Fortunately the plot was foiled when the man and his accomplice approached an undercover policeman to carry out the killings. This all happened just a few miles away from where I live in Gillingham.

“We live in a society where liberal freedoms are a given fact and should not be used to further oppressive behaviour. It is difficult to help people unless they are willing to help themselves. I believe this demands self-reflection within communities and the courage to speak out about right and wrong. If we ignore this issue women will continue to be persecuted in this way. People who want to come to our country should abide by our countries’ norms on ethics and morality, which totally condemn this behaviour.”

“Yesterday afternoon I became aware, via calls from journalists, that an order had been made against journalists, that an order had been made against me. As I told the journalists and is widely reported this morning, I had not received any such order at that time. that time

“Last night a tweet by the BBC’s Ross Hawkins directed me to the Inquiry website where I found a copy of the order. I also understand there is a notice, which I have yet to receive.

“On the front page of my blog, in large type, my email, phone and fax numbers are clearly displayed. Could I politely request that service is effected by either email or fax as set out below.

“Pending sight of the notice which will enable me to get legal advice, late last night I removed the statements by Alastair Campbell from my website. This is in no way an admission of any kind nor is it an acceptance of jurisdiction.”

The Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, announced yesterday that the current ban on filming in law courts would be overturned by primary legislation to improve people’s understanding of the justice system.

“The Government and judiciary are determined to improve transparency and public understanding of court through allowing court broadcasting,” Mr Clarke said. “We believe television has a role in increasing public confidence in the justice system.”

Broadcasting will initially be allowed from the Court of Appeal, and the Government is expected to look to expand to the Crown Court at a later date, although changes will be worked out in close consultation with the judiciary.

The Ministry of Justice has been keen to stress that only judges’ summary remarks will be filmed. Victims, witnesses, offenders and jurors, regardless of the nature of the trial, will not be filmed, marrying privacy concerns with transparency.

Filming and broadcasting in court is currently banned under Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and Section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

Faced with government cuts of £350 million to the Legal Aid budget, potentially affecting oveer 725,000 cases per year, the Law Society has produced an alternative method of generating budget savings without cutting access to justice for the less well-off.

Birmingham and Beyond‘s Founding Editor Alan W Collins said that “it was once said that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, but the government’s cuts seriously jeopardise that principle.

“I campaign for an open and fair democracy, and that includes an open and fair justice system. Cutting such a sizeable chunk of the Legal Aid budget is a regressive step that will undermine decades of work invested in improving access to justice.”

The Law Society say that families, unemployed, elderly and infirm people will lose access to justice after the cuts, with legal support in cases of clinical negligence, welfare and employment lost.

Sound Off For Justice has identified £384 million worth of savings – £34 million more than the government is seeking – which recognise that litigation should be the last resort in any matter, and includes measures such as capping legal fees to protect access to justice for the vulnerable.

Alan continued “the previous government maxed out the nation’s credit card and it is paramount that we plug the gaping hole in the nation’s finances. However, it is important that savings being made do not risk taking this country backwards in returning to a two-tier society.

“Legal Aid has ensured that, when people need legal support, the cost of fighting for justice need not be an issue.

“I would urge every Birmingham and Beyond and Legal Leanings reader to visit the Sound Off For Justice website, sign the petition, write to your MP and see how else you can help the campaign.

“If the government’s planned cut goes ahead, then, instead of fighting for justice, those same people will again be fighting for access to justice.

“We must doe everything we can to ensure that never becomes an issue again!”

The government is planning to cut £350 million from the legal aid budget, potentially affecting up to 725,000 cases per year, which the Law Society believes would cost Birmingham law firms over £1.1 million and stop more than 6,500 cases in Birmingham.

According to the Birmingham Post, the Law Society’s head of Legal Aid said that “those needing help in cases of medical negligence, divorce, employment and welfare will no longer have access to justice.

“These people will effectively be silenced, as their cases will go unheard without the support of a legal aid lawyer. Justice will become only available to the wealthy, with the poor being the worst hit.

“Many will face a dilemma between plunging themselves into debt to try and fund their battle, going unrepresented in court, or giving up their fight for justice altogether.”

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, courted controversy last month when he said “the majority will be ineligible [for Legal Aid] due to the restrictive evidence they will need.”

In a letter to students, the Head of the Kent Law School explained the University’s reasons for withdrawing the course, although she claims that current students, and those starting in September, will be unaffected.

The University is concerned that the rise in tuition fees to ?9,000 from 2012 will make students believe that the method of teaching – involving listening to lectures online with longer seminars in smaller groups – would be inadequate compared to the fee being paid.

However, past and present students have hit back, citing several reasons why they believe that the course should not be withdrawn.

A Facebook group, called “Save Kent Law School at Medway“, was created by recent graduate Karen Edwards, who said that “the Law School at Medway is an important asset to the Medway towns, it not only offers opportunities of study but also of help.

“The Law Clinic provides regular advice sessions in Strood, Brompton and Age UK Chatham. Many hours have been invested in setting up the Medway branch of the clinic and many contacts and close relationships formed with local lawyers.”

Another recent graduate, David McKnight, added “I know several people who have graduated this year who would not have had the oportunity if the degree had only been offered at Canterbury.

“Kent at Medway was outstanding for its provision of high quality education for people, especially mature students, with young children to care for.

“Medway allowed for them to study for a degree and also be there to do the school run.”

Medway blogger Alan W Collins, who also graduated from the Medway course, said “I am shocked by the direction that the University has chosen to take, and saddened that future students will not be able to enjoy the same teaching environment that has proved successful for so many students before them.

“This is a sad day for the University and a sadder day still for Law students.”

You can view, and sign, the petition here.

House Arrest from Winston Burrows on Vimeo.

Who’d have thought it…

Premier League Footballer XXXX XXXXX, who can only be legally identified as “CTB”, was granted the super-injunction after claims of an affair with former Big Brother star Imogen Thomas were about to be published by The Sun.

XXXXX‘ name was revealed on the social networking website Twitter, along with those of five others believed to have taken out similar super-injunctions, and within hours his name had been seen by thousands of people around the world. This number has since jumped to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, after it was retweeted by celebrities including XXXX XXXXXX.

XXXXX, though, could not accept that the world now knew about his injunction and alleged affair – and that, thus, he should just come clean. Instead, he launched legal action against Twitter, Inc “and persons unknown” in an attempt to bring about contempt of court claims against them.

In the court order, Eady J extraordinarily asserted his authority by stating that the injunction was effective against “the whole world”. Unfortunately for XXXXX, though, newspapers in America and on the continent have published the name.

And, yesterday, the Sunday Herald in Scotland used his face as their cover picture with simply a black bar and the word “CENSORED” covering his eyes. It is impossible to suggest, now, that it is worthwhile keeping the order in place.

The Independent agrees. Its front page today (pictured) has a blurb stating:

“Journalist and TV personality XXXXXXXXXX is targeted by lawyers for tweeting the identity of super-injunction footballer XXXXXXXXXX.

“TV star XXXXXXXXXX, pop singer XXXXXXXXXX, author XXXXXXXXXX and comedian XXXXXXXXXX have also used Twitter to name XXXXXXXXXX, another player with a gagging order.

“And now a Scottish paper, XXXXXXXXXX, has put a picture of this footballer on its front page.

The law is so draconian that none of the celebrities who retweeted the comments can be named, at least not in England and Wales. Every other jurisdiction, despite Eady J’s claims, seems confident in its immunity from the super-injunction. It is perhaps for this reason that XXXXXXXXX blogger XXXXX XXXXXX who publishes the blog XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX in XXXXX has also named the player on the blog.

XXXX XXXXX‘ case could be considered a new media Spycatcher.

In 1985, a former MI5 employee and Assistant Director sought to print a book detailing his work trying to find a Soviet spy in MI5. It was immediately injuncted by the English courts. However, it was legally available in every other jurisdiction in the world – including Scotland. People could then purchase the book in any other jurisdiction and legally bringing it back into England – making a mockery of the legal process which attempted to ban it.

It took two years for that to be recognised by a High Court judge, who lifted the ban, but it was re-implemented by the Law Lords shortly after. The Economist, which had sought to publish a review of the book in its magazine, instead printed a blank page with the following words:

“In all but one country, our readers have on this page a review of ‘Spycatcher,’ a book by an ex-M.I.5 man, Peter Wright. The exception is Britain, where the book, and comment on it, have been banned. For our 420,000 readers there, this page is blank – and the law is an ass.”

The Law Lords decided that the law, in fact, was an ass the following year, when it decided that the book contained no secrets because it was freely available and cleared the book for sale in England. The European Court of Human Rights held in 1991 that the British government had breached the European Convention of Human Rights in gagging its newspapers (or, at least, those in England).

The judiciary seems not to have caught up with the new media, though. Technically, they are teetering on the edge of suing an estimated 30,000 Twitter users who have spread the names around the Internet. They are going to ask the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC, to commence contempt of court proceedings against journalist XXXX XXXXXX, whilst he is already looking into whether the Sunday Herald can face similar action. The latter, though, depends on its availability and distribution in England and Wales.

Neither could the judiciary silence thousands of XXXXXXXXX fans, who chanted at XXXXX “you’re not secret any more” when their team played XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX today.

Neither XXXX XXXXX, nor Parliament, and nor the judiciary will see the end of this farce any time soon. Today, several papers are again covering the story on their front pages, and The Sun have listed some of the estimated 80 super-injunctions covering celebrities:

“CTB: Premier League footballer who had affair with Big Brother Star Imogen Thomas

“ETK: Married actor had affair with a married colleague, who was sacked after his wife found out

“AMM v HXW: TV star is accused of having sex with his ex-wife after remarrying

“NEJ: Famous actor involved with Rooney prostitute Helen Wood

“OPQ v BJM & CJM: Married TV star prevents “intimate photographs & information” being sold to newspaper

“CDE & FGH v LMN: TV star is alleged to have had phone, Twitter and text sex with a single mother

“MJN: Married Premier League footballer had affair with 18-year old model Kimberley West

“DFT v TFD: A high-profile public figure is being blackmailed by alleged mistress

“ASG v GSA: A famous married dad is though to have had an affair with a girl he met in a nightclub”

To consider that an injunction is still sustainable is absurd. In the Spycatcher case, it took three years for the judiciary to accept that what was being kept secret was, in fact, no longer secret. With the age of the Internet, they simply cannot take so long to reach the same conclusion with XXXX XXXXX.

The law of privacy has been twisted by the courts to protect adulterous celebrities from embarrassment without Parliament having a proper say. Indeed, now the Master of the Rolls is suggesting that a centuries-old law saying that proceedings in Parliament can be freely reported may not, in fact, protect the media from contempt of court actions.

The law has descended into farce, with nations across the world mocking it. As media lawyer Mark Stephens told The Sun, it is “likely that quite soon the British courts will accept that we can no longer sustain the injunction”.

For the media and thousands of people across the country, though, that cannot come soon enough.

Although I know the identity of the XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX player involved in this case, I doubt that the Solicitors Regulation Authority, of which I am now a student member, would appreciate me revealing his name and breaching a court order.

However, such is the farce of the law, you need do little more than type XXXX XXXXX into Google before it suggests additional search terms including “injunction”, “super injunction”, “Imogen” and “suing Twitter”.