Laurie Penny

Pop culture and radical politics with a feminist twist

It’s time to ditch the Digital Economy Act

Let’s use Nick Clegg’s promise of digital politics to rid ourselves of this antediluvian law.

By Laurie Penny Published 01 July 2010 14:40

Nick Clegg is angling for some much-needed goodwill from the left with his announcement this morning that the public will be able to nominate "unnecessary laws" that they want to see repealed.

The Deputy Prime Minister is crowdsourcing people's ideas for the repeal or reform of legislation in three key areas:

Laws that have eroded civil liberties
Regulations that stifle the way charities and businesses work
Laws that are not required and which are likely to see law-abiding citizens criminalised

The Your Freedom website allows the public to suggest changes to invasive laws, and to "rate" those that they would like the government to consider for repeal or reform in the upcoming Freedom Bill, which will be unveiled in the autumn.

Depending on which suggestions make it into the bill, this may well herald a whole new way of forming policy, as well as allowing Clegg to put on a solemn voice to inform us that "Today is the launch of Your Freedom", rather like a civil servant auditioning for the role of deranged desert prophet.

The Your Freedom initiative isn't precisely direct digital democracy -- the government has no obligation to consider any of the suggestions, which, according to the Telegraph, will be "sifted" before any assessment is made -- but it's a start.

There is really only one way for civil liberties campaigners to respond to such an unprecedented display of faith in digital politics: with a lobby to reform the antediluvian Digital Economy Act, removing the sections of the bill which threaten internet users with summary disconnection for engaging in free file-sharing.

This morning, a group of Open Rights Group supporters and opponents of the Digital Economy Bill, led by Katie Sutton, convenor of the Stop Disconnection demonstration in March, put together the following statement:

The Digital Economy Act (DEA) is an insult to British citizens, and the government should consider its repeal in the upcoming Freedom Bill as a matter of urgency. The DEA was rushed through at the tail-end of the last parliament in an undemocratic manner, allowing the owners of copyrighted content such as music and film (rights holders) to demand that an internet service provider (ISP) cut someone's internet connection if they suspect that they have downloaded copyrighted content. Rights holders only need to prove that the wrongdoing occurred using the internet connection they wish to be cut, not that the persons affected are guilty.

This leaves account holders responsible for the actions of anyone using their connection, whether legitimately or by piggybacking without permission. In this digital age, an internet connection is essential for simple tasks like banking, paying bills and jobhunting, and as a result, taking away a connection used by several people as punishment for the actions of an individual who may not even be known to them is fundamentally wrong.

Simply put, the act imposes disproportionate, collective punishment, does not follow the principle of innocent until proven guilty and contravenes Magna Carta, which in 1215 stated that, as a basic human right, no person may be punished without a fair trial. The Digital Economy Act is a massive insult to our civil liberties and should be repealed in its entirety, subject to the less objectionable clauses being redrafted and discussed democratically in the Houses of Parliament to pave the way for a proper digital economy which does not punish innocent people.

If the Liberal Democrats are looking for "bad laws", they should look no further than the Digital Economy Act, which was forced through during the wash-up, despite huge opposition from a digital grass-roots movement of internet users, civil rights protesters and allies within Westminster.

The act could be construed in any of the three available categories:

as a threat to civil liberties (in 2009, EU Amendment 138/46 declared that access to the internet is a fundamental human right)
as a threat to businesses and charities (many sections of the music, film and other UK creative industries depend on file-sharing to support their business model and disseminate ideas), and
as an unecessary law that threatens to criminalise the seven million law-abiding British internet users who regularly share files.

It's only a pity that the Liberal Democrats, who voiced their opposition to the Digital Economy Bill in March, couldn't be bothered to turn up to vote against this regressive, draconian law in significant numbers prior to the election campaign.

Still, better late than never: for those of us who care about digital rights, the patronisingly titled Your Freedom site is a brilliant opportunity to make our voices heard.

What you can do

Comment on and rate any or all of the following suggestions, uploaded to Your Freedom by concerned citizens, to repeal aspects of the Digital Economy Act.

It is telling that, within hours of the site going live, a number of suggestions to reform the act have already been put forward, as well as some sillier ideas for what the government should throw out ("The EU in general" is my favourite so far). I've selected what seem to be the most comprehensive and well-supported proposals, referring to specific clauses of the act that need to be repealed. All of them deserve your rating and comments:

An official proposal, put together by the Open Rights Group in consultation with human rights lawyers and digital freedom activists (link to come). If you vote for only one idea, make it this one.
Save Britain's Digital Economy by Repealing the Digital Economy Act.
Repeal the Digital Economy Act 2010. You'll need to log in or register at the Your Freedom website, but the process takes just a few seconds and does not require you to give out sensitive information.

If you believe, as I do, that access to the internet is a fundamental right, you should get behind this campaign.

Tags: Digital Economy Act

More from Laurie Penny

40 comments

Thu, 2010-07-01 15:08 — Colin (not verified)

Why should it be a fundamental right to rip-off artists and companies distributing artistic content? I am confused. How else would you punish those who illegally fileshare other than through their IP address? Sure, there have to be some decent safeguards to protect the innocent, but the call to repeal the act is driven by "freetards" who don't see anything wrong with what is effectively stealing.

Thu, 2010-07-01 15:24 — Laurie Penny1

Um - no, it's just not. The point is that summary disconnection from the net isn't a fair punishment for *anything*, much less downloading content.

Thu, 2010-07-01 15:26 — Mr Civil Libertarian (not verified)

Because, Colin, even if we accept copyright infringement as "theft", that is no case for such a wide-ranging punishment. Disconnecting a household from the internet because one person downloaded a few albums is like banning an entire family from Tescos just because their child picked up a pack of smarties without the parents noticing.

As for who is ripping off who, intellectual property is nothing but a scam. It's statist, anti-free market, and corporatist.

Thu, 2010-07-01 15:28 — Anon (not verified)

Colin, go learn about the issues before commenting on something you obviously don't understand.

1. The Internet is used for far more than ripping off "artists and companies distributing artistic content".

2. You can't identify the user responsible from an IP address, so it's not suitable evidence. I assume you'd be happy with someone finding you guilty of a crime because someone on your street committed it? Thought not...

3. Read the comments on the Your Freedom site, none of the responses are to do with legalizing filesharing, but rather undoing the injustice of the Act itself.

Anyway, the "companies distributing artistic content" no longer have a business, why would an artist give up a large portion of their sales to such a company, when they can distribute their art direct to the fans over the Internet? Their business model is outdated and they are fast running out of time to adapt, this Act was their last hope at propping up that failing business model and it needs to go.

Thu, 2010-07-01 15:34 — hangbitch (not verified)

Nice post and entirely correct.

One point, though - what about repealing anti civil liberties policies that affect the less well off? ASBOs, the dangerous dogs act - all horrible infringements on civil liberties but the civil liberties of the working class, so nobody is really giving a stuff about that. V good post on that issue by this blogger:

http://brontides.com/2010/06/the-civil-liberties-agenda-in-britain/

The other thing about Cleggie's little blogspot is that only those online get to take part in it. If you haven't got access to a computer, you haven't got an opportunity to tell the Cleggster what you want to see chopped.

Thu, 2010-07-01 15:36 — Andy Mabbett (not verified)

"The Your Freedom website allows the public to suggest changes to invasive laws and "rate" those which they would like the government to consider for repeal or reform…"

Sadly, it doesn't: "Unfortunately, due to high levels of usage, log in is currently unavailable."

Thu, 2010-07-01 15:37 — Jamie_Griff (not verified)

"How else would you punish those who illegally fileshare other than through their IP address?"

I guess you can't. I guess the copyright holders will have to learn to deal with that in way that doesn't contravene people's basic human rights (i.e. the right to fair trial, Article 10 of the UDHR). The music and film industry need to wake up to the changes in the utilisation of content that the internet has engendered in the same way the newspaper industry is having to.
At the moment they simply can't get their heads around it - they see every pirated song, movie and game as lost revenue when in fact a large proportion (teenagers etc) don't have the money to buy the product in the first place; lots would never have gone anywhere near the product unless it was downloaded free (but in some cases subsequently end up as a paying customer for this or a related product, so that the industry has actually benefited form free advertising).
Sure, there will always be some pure pirates but people, in general, are happy to pay a fair price for content that they value.
The value of the right of an individual to a fair hearing in the event of criminal charges being brought against them far outweigh, in my opinion, the value of the rights of copyright holders to defend (in their perception) profits from an outdated business model.
Times have changed (and the entertainment industry needs to change with them) our rights cannot.

Thu, 2010-07-01 15:58 — Alex Stapleton (not verified)

The problem with the act is not merely that it encroaches on previously unregulated ground, but that it does it without thought either to consumers, or to the future of our creative industries.

It is reactionary and aims only to protect existing business models rather than to enable both rights holders and consumers to enjoy the media we have grown to love so much.

Digital media provides the producers of content to control access in ways that was previously impossible. And it provides those who wish to with ways to break the law with remarkable ease. What we need is an act that protects and empowers both sides of the exchange.

For example as a consumer purchasing digital media I do not expect my consumer rights to be any different to a physical purchase but as it stands this is not the case. Refunds for unused items are often impossible to get even though in many cases the seller knows full well the user has never consumed it. Surely if I am expected to give up my privacy like this I should get something back for it?

If I lose my digital copy I have no protected right to another copy and may have to buy a replacement.

If I wish to resell my media, I can not and will frequently be punished by my retailer for doing so.

So as consumers the digital economy act does nothing but treat as criminals by defining ways to punish us while ignoring our consumer rights.

Hopefully Ofcoms report will not suggest that disconnection from the internet is a reasonable punishment for file sharing and instead will have some more sensible suggestions.

Fri, 2010-07-02 22:23 — Anon (not verified)

I have more hundreds of albums than I can count. It also turns out that, without really meaning to, I have gadzillions of megabytes of MP3s on my laptop. Some I bought on CD. Others I borrowed on the off chance I might one day wnat to listen to them, but actually cant be bothered to. The BPI might see this as several thousand pounds worth of lost sales. But I can guarantee they're wrong. If I cant even be bothered to listen to it, why wd I have bought it. I'd far rather simply pay an eat all you can licence than delete everything, or wander around feeling like a crook. If most people have infringing material on their laptops, we're all vulnerable to intrusive bullying search at any time. Anything that criminalises the majority population feels wrong to me. Fans have no objection to channeling money to artists.

Fri, 2010-07-02 22:26 — BPI person (not verified)

Rightsholder: "Why am I behaving like such a twat?"

Socrates: "The reasons are threefold: greed, fear, and belief in your own bullsh*t."

Thu, 2010-07-01 16:18 — Colin (not verified)

All I am trying to say (maybe badly) is that there seems to be a big rush to repeal this law rather than suggest more sensible punishments - I agree that cutting internet connection completely would be draconian. How about just preventing downloads to a particular email address rather than blocking internet connection completely? Any other suggestions?

And on IP addresses - I am not sure that Anon 14.28's analogy really works. IP addresses do relate to a particular property. The only way someone else could use your IP address would be if you didnt encrypt your wireless router. How about mandatory encryption on routers?

Or do we just think that there is no problem at all with taking artistic conent without paying the artist/distributor for it? It seems as though a lot of people are happy to repeat the line (at least a couple of years old now), that the record industry only has itself to blame for all of this....

Thu, 2010-07-01 16:19 — Iain Bagnall (not verified)

Above all it just won't work- hardcore offenders won't be stopped by this, because they are, and always have been, ahead of the game with the media companies. Look at pirate bay. They've been sued again and again yet the site is still there- the guys running the search engine don't even know who's running the databases, and they don't want to! Anonymisation and encryption are the name of the game now, if you don't want to be caught you won't be. This will only hurt casual downloaders. A deterrent, hot air, nothing more.

Thu, 2010-07-01 16:41 — Chris Mills (not verified)

@Hangbitch Everybody in the UK can get online at their local Library. Therefore in theory, anyone who wants to can access the site.

Thu, 2010-07-01 16:51 — hangbitch (not verified)

@Chris Mills:

They just gotta get in fast, right - before their libraries are closed & reinvented as malls.

Thu, 2010-07-01 17:01 — Anon (not verified)

@Colin "How about just preventing downloads to a particular email address rather than blocking internet connection completely?"

Technically impossible. All "downloads" are the same regardless of whether its an email, an image or a copyrighted track. Unless of course you want snooping on all internet traffic? Email addresses aren't related to an internet connection at all so that doesn't make sense.

"How about mandatory encryption on routers?"

Encryption can and is regularly broken, unless you are using WPA2 then your router can probably be broken into in minutes. Even still, updating all routers to this level of encryption will cost millions and still puts the cost of the crime on the innocent. What if I want to share my Internet connection with people visiting my building? I should be able to do that without being sued for a crime I didn't commit.

"Or do we just think that there is no problem at all with taking artistic conent without paying the artist/distributor for it?"

That's a biased question. Copying is not taking, and it's not theft.

It's not a question of what we think is right, it's about what is possible. If technology makes it infeasible to make a living from content creation, so be it. Content creation won't stop if people can't be paid for it, millions of people across the world write, perform and record not for financial gain, but because they love doing it, it's been the same since time began. Ignoring that, musicians make more money from gigs than music sales, film makers make more from cinema than DVD sales, and the hard copy book isn't going anywhere fast. Only the middle men have anything to worry about, the artists will be fine, they'll just need to find a different channel.

Thu, 2010-07-01 17:22 — Colin (not verified)

Anon,

Thanks for addressing my points. I have to throw my hands up in the air at this point, and say that I dont know what the solution is. I am still pretty convinced that it is not just accepting a free-for-all.

I don't want to give the impression that I will be crying over the demise of the record industry. I agree with most of what you are saying about artists. However, I think it is a bit naive to say that all artists do it just for love. Those that are able to earn money, should be fairly rewarded for their efforts, just as a loving craftsman of furniture, for example, should be rewarded for theirs.

My fear is that even if the middle man is cut out the problem might get even worse. If artists rely directly on individual download sales, rather than a fixed recording contract, they are going to be worse hit by filesharing than they are at the moment. At least the middleman takes part of the hit at the moment!

Copying (copyright infringement) might not strictly be theft, but it is pretty darned close (and is still illegal, by the way)

Thu, 2010-07-01 17:33 — Yeti (not verified)

I agree 100 percent!

Thu, 2010-07-01 17:38 — Anon (not verified)

@Colin I understand where you are coming from, but us techies have got a pretty good idea of where things are going. Things have changed. In a split second with no cost I can create an exact duplicate of something that already exists. That's never been possible before, there is no analogy or historial event that can compare. When unlimited supply exists, how can you make money?

Believe it or not, even in a world where content is free, the creators can still make money. For example, gigs, licensing commercial use of their tracks and even donations. And artists do make money this way right now. Google for "Jamendo" and artists such as "Dan Bull" or bands like "Severed Fifth". Artists can continue to make money, just not necessarily from the track sales directly, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Think of a music track becoming a form of marketing.

And, just so you know, I don't download copyrighted stuff unless the item I want cannot be purchased any more (abandonware), or that I've already bought but I need in another format (e.g. roms of console games). I still buy music, even if I'm appalled at the MP3 pricing :)

As a side note, this is the industry's fault. It's been 11 years since Napster, they haven't adapted and if it wasn't for iTunes they'd still be trying to flog us overpriced CDs hoping the Internet would just go away.

Thu, 2010-07-01 18:42 — r

http://depill.me

Thu, 2010-07-01 18:43 — Laments (not verified)

@r
Digital Economy Pill http://depill.me/ LOL!

Thu, 2010-07-01 19:14 — 9xzulug

seems to me what we are hearing is appeasement on issues which cannot be controlled with small talk.we all know whats wrong or right,rules are put in place for guidelines,some bend them,some break them.companies/banks/insurance etc etc etc all break rules to either save money or make money.JUST USE YOUR MORALES

Thu, 2010-07-01 20:32 — Roderick Parks (not verified)

Agree entirely that Digital Economy Act is bad legislation and frankly I think parts of it are virtually unenforceable.

However, it's also time to call for the scrapping of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and its subsequent amendments.

I closed my ISP business in 2005 not only because commoditisation had eroded profits but also because I would not be prepared to spy on my customers if instructed to do so.

Summary from Wikipedia (the legislation is lengthy!):

RIPA regulates the manner in which certain public bodies may conduct surveillance and access a person's electronic communications. The Act:

- enables certain public bodies to demand that an ISP provide access to a customer's communications in secret;

- enables mass surveillance of communications in transit;

- enables certain public bodies to demand ISPs fit equipment to facilitate surveillance;

- enables certain public bodies to demand that someone hand over keys to protected information;

- allows certain public bodies to monitor people's internet activities;

- prevents the existence of interception warrants and any data collected with them from being revealed in court.

It is a "snoopers' charter". It has to go. Much more specific legislation pertinent to specific domains such as terrorism is justifiable, but not the blanket coverage that RIPA provides.

Thu, 2010-07-01 20:51 — josephCape

The DE Bill is based on a fundamentally spurious notion of property rights: I can own a CD with music on it but how is it tenable that I can own the rights to anyone configuring their own physical material property in such a way that it plays my song?

Thankyou Penny for turning your red pen on this: if I have some time I'll do so myself. It's a poorly thought through proposal from every angle. But then Rt Hon Stephen Timms, Minister for Digital Britain, seems to believe that the 'IP' in "IP address" stands for Intellectual Property: http://i.imgur.com/1pXlO.jpg, if that's any indication of the digital illiteracy of the political class.

DE Bill = Debill, as in debility.
This is a type/token di

Sat, 2010-07-03 12:39 — Rich (not verified)

Great comments so far.

There are two things that really worry me about the DEB - firstly that money that would have gone into the content industry/creation is now going to go on lawyers and fines.

secondly, people will move to much stronger encryption of traffic, filelockers, communication etc in order to get what they want. if the use of these tools becomes the standard (hence they will improve) the real crimes of terrorism and child porn will be even harder to get at, and that is a real shame.

I can already use my phone to illegally download and it is not covered in this bill at all.

it is a complete joke and a litmus test for how easily special interest lobbies can get their way.

Sat, 2010-07-03 14:44 — Stephan (not verified)

@Colin,
No, that's just not true. Someone can spoof your IP address, even if you do encrypt your wireless router. Here is the proof from a live study done at the University of Washington. http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/

If you think, IP spoofing rarely happens. Think again. The pirate bay is known to seed their logs with fake transactions from millions of perfectly valid random ip addresses.

Also there is at least one other way that I know of spoofing an ip address, and I'm familiar with this one personally. When I lived in Berkeley, my neighbors next door, mostly students, were stealing my comcast cable (both access to the channels I had access to, and bandwidth from my cable broadband, that I had under my name). And they stole it, not from my wireless router, but physically stole it from a physical cable, long before it even came into my house. And the only reason I found out about it before I started receiving threatening pay-us letters the RIAA is because they just couldn't keep their mouth shut about it to their friends (otherwise, I wouldn't have had a clue they were doing it -- even thought I work in IT myself).

In fact, because of this I've researched some of the ways this kind of technology can be hijacked, and mark my words, if countries really start internet prohibition on a mass scale, you can count on all those thousands/millions of disenfranchised 'freetards' as you call them, to find ever more creative, organized, and disruptive ways to leech/steal bandwidth from any of the last remaining legally-abiding internet users, including yourself Colin. And as I already pointed out in my previous paragraph, if you get hit by the lucky pirate bay lottery of spoofed ips, good luck proving to the RIAA/MPAA's collection department/agency that you indeed didn't steal/upload/download anything from their inventory of songs/movies.

Sat, 2010-07-03 15:23 — David Greaves (not verified)

It appears that the site has closed the idea and redirected people to "similar" but significantly less well written or considered articles.

I suggest writing to the 'contact' link on the yourfreedom site.

Tue, 2010-07-06 18:39 — Hard Truth (not verified)

"Anyone who comments trying to defend the music/film industry is an absolute fool."

You must have trouble reading, or the concepts are too subtle for you to understand.

Creators wanted to be free from oligopolistic practices, the internet appeared to offer freedom. All the anti-copyright activists have succeeded in doing is make them support those corporates, albeit reluctantly.

The cross party support and wide public support for punishing leechers is a direct result of the anti-copyright lobby, whose sense of entitlement is not widely shared.

Tue, 2010-07-06 18:40 — Hard Truth (not verified)

"Anyway, the "companies distributing artistic content" no longer have a business, why would an artist give up a large portion of their sales to such a company, when they can distribute their art direct to the fans over the Internet? "

Because it's better to sell to a market that pays, than a market that doesn't.

Fri, 2010-07-02 00:53 — Nicholas Butler (not verified)

There is an awful lot passed in the Act that made sense , with the exceptions of sections 3 to 18.

It is unclear how OfCom will succeed in reducing piracy by 70%. Since its not clear how that initial 100% figure will be defined.

Despite the process suggesting you will receive a letter ( and on close inspection it doesnt 'really' say more than 1 letter ) what it doesnt point out is that the recourse for complaint puts the 'onus on the subscriber to prove they are innocent. If we know that its technically not possible to say some one is guilty remotely ( it really isnt , you need their hard drive to say if they ARE guilty ) then how can you technically prove you are innocent.

WPA2 can be broken into if you watch any You Tube video on that topic you'll get some good advice for breaking into your neighbours WiFi.

Am I anti artists being paid ? No I am not. But I can demonstrate plenty or succesful artists who are also against the bill and plenty more Musicians, Authors and Photographers who have used Piracy ( of their own material ) as their best means of recognition and income.

What happens if my IP address is added to a list of 'Seeds' by bit torrent software ( this is technically possible )

What happens if I am downloading through torrents a legitimate file ( many open source projects distribute via torrents ) which is incorrectly marked as pirated content.

Who is to say that the file names "James Cameron Avataar" actually contains that film and not just a collection of backups seeded into the net for the purpose of offsite file archiving through dead torrents.

Wifi is not secure, file names and IP addresses dont cut it and this only leaves OfCom and the Govt with needing to introduce tougher sanctions leading to a less free and less open internet.

I am thinking of my own children when I consider this bill. I want them to experience a free and unrestricted internet that I helped create.

Fri, 2010-07-02 02:15 — Katie Sutton (not verified)

@Colin - my statement is not about saying it's okay to download content without paying for it. My statement is about the human right to a fair trial.

I am not in best place to suggest more sensible punishments, especially given that one of my arguments against the Act is that it was rushed through with very little thought or input from people who know what they're talking about. However, one I might be inclined to suggest is a small fine relative to what has been downloaded, only issued if a jury declares a person guilty, rather than disconnecting an entire household for the potentially unproven actions of one person.

My suggestion is not to ditch the law completely: my suggestion is to repeal the Digital Economy Act, rewrite it sensibly with proper consultation from people on both sides of the filesharing debate and submit it for debate again, this time allowing it sufficient time to be picked apart, analysed and discussed - treatment which every potential law deserves, but this one simply did not get.

Sat, 2010-07-03 22:00 — Hard Truth (not verified)

It is the immature copyright-haters (like Katie Sutton) who are the real anachronism - they haven't moved on since 1995. Many people in the creative industries looked to the internet to liberate them from big business and old models, but they singularly failed to come up with anything of any use.

They fill their days raging about the injustice of enforcing a labour right. How very progressive. This is not the Wild West, and finally reality is catching up with them.

Sun, 2010-07-04 01:52 — Amusing (not verified)

Anyone who comments trying to defend the music/film industry is an absolute fool.

They've had their fair chances to adapt to the age of the internet, and in their old-age failing methods do they stay.

First you had Napster, they were quite happy to come to an agreement with the music industry. Did they? Nope, the music industry sued them into the ground.

Everything that is happening is a direct result of that.

This draconian law isn't really even particularly enforceable. Any idiot can use a subnet mask, even when torrenting, albeit with ridiculously slowed speeds on the download.

Sat, 2010-07-10 16:59 — theonion (not verified)

Colin: "It seems as though a lot of people are happy to repeat the line (at least a couple of years old now), that the record industry only has itself to blame for all of this...."

But that's the rub - it does have itself to blame, at least in part. Rather than amending business models - say, for example, converging ISP's and content producers so that internet access fees come to include a cost for content - media industries instead opt to lobby for authoritarian and unworkable legislation.

Meanwhile, "pirates" are simply improving encryption, and other techical means of evading detection. Daft law from a daft government.

Fri, 2010-07-02 12:40 — alan (not verified)

My we've come a long way since i used to sit by the radio taping the top 40 on a sunday night.

This sort of bill is important but was rushed through without any real sort of thought but i fear if the bill was scrapped what sort of bill would replace it?i fear something far worse given the form of the current government becuase i think they dont really understand this digital age we live in,that being said what government does?

Fri, 2010-07-02 18:19 — cgcenet

"It's only a pity that the Liberal Democrats, who voiced their opposition to the Digital Economy Bill in March, couldn't be bothered to turn up to vote against this regressive, draconian law in significant numbers prior to the election campaign."

Be fair. Even if all Lib Dem MPs had turned up to vote against it, it would still have passed.