Kieran

This is an obvious and huge infringement that this is on freedom of speech and media. Preliminary research as clearly shown that a filter: -will drastically reduce internet speeds -be significantly more expensive than projected (an expense borne by consumers) -will not filter users who access 'illegal' content using proxy servers (routinely used to mask identity) -will not filter material shared on p2p networks Ultimately this filter is about a religious agenda who believe they know better than everyone else and have a (God-given) right to decide what material that others should have access to. The other supporters are familiar nanny-state supporters to whom no problem does not merit a Government solution. For whom no problem could or should ever be addressed by parents. Who is better placed to police a child's access to the internet; the Government or the parents in the next room watching Big Brother?